I’m not sure “words point to clusters in thingspace” is true.
Consider: two people with no common language working on a task together that requires coordination.
For example, imagine two laborers are trying to move a heavy object and they can only do so by both lifting at the same time, taking a few steps, and then setting the object down again.
If two people both speak English, they might solve this problem by saying “one, two, three, lift!” But even if one speaks English and one speaks Chinese, they will still very quickly figure out how to do it.
In this case, it seems like it can’t be the case that there is a “word” that is pointing to a object in “thingspace” because the two people don’t have any words in common.
Instead, they will settle on some ad-hoc protocol that allows them to figure out when the other person needs to drop the object, or when they are ready to lift again.
I think language is just this on a massive scale. Humans needed to coordinate, so they agreed on a set of signals that allow them to describe the movements they want other humans to do.
If we think of language not as a “map of the world out there” but rather a stream of bits that allows two minds to coordinate, then I don’t see why human semantics would have data-structures for different elements of fluid dynamics.
In particular, if you ask me to draw a picture of a cloud, it comes out looking like this:
Which I’m pretty sure has stripped all of the fluid-dynamics out of the cloud.
Another example of this is the fact that most knowledge at companies is procedural and cannot in any sense be written down. This is why when key employees leave, or companies try to duplicate the exact same process at a different location, they often find that key steps were missing or left out.
I do think “words point to clusters in mindspace” is somewhat valid. Going back to the “1,2,3, lift!” example, the reason this works is because it allows me to meaningfully point to something in your mind. And if we agree that mindspace maps onto “thingspace” (which it must, since people are able to operate successfully in in thingspace). Then there is probably some indirect mapping “words” → “mindspace” → “thingspace”. But I don’t see any reason why this mapping would need sufficient richness to include all of fluid dynamics. In the “1,2,3, lift!′ example, only 1 bit needs to be communicated (start lifting/stop lifting), not a complete map of the object being lifted. Words are also incredibly situational. If I say “1,2,3, lift!” out of the blue, you’re going to have no idea what I mean.
Once you make the switch from “words are a method to describe particular things in the world” to “words are a tool to access and edit the mental states of other human beings”, it also makes a lot of other phenoma clear. For example, why do people like to argue about definitions. If words are merely a pointer to facts about reality, we should all be able to agree what they are pointing to. But if words are a tool to affect other people’s mental space, then any attempt to redefine a word is also an attempt to control the other person. This also explains why language reform is one of the key tools commonly used by revolutionaries and social movements, and why tabooing a word is a key project of social reformers.
I’m not sure “words point to clusters in thingspace” is true.
Consider: two people with no common language working on a task together that requires coordination.
For example, imagine two laborers are trying to move a heavy object and they can only do so by both lifting at the same time, taking a few steps, and then setting the object down again.
If two people both speak English, they might solve this problem by saying “one, two, three, lift!” But even if one speaks English and one speaks Chinese, they will still very quickly figure out how to do it.
In this case, it seems like it can’t be the case that there is a “word” that is pointing to a object in “thingspace” because the two people don’t have any words in common.
Instead, they will settle on some ad-hoc protocol that allows them to figure out when the other person needs to drop the object, or when they are ready to lift again.
I think language is just this on a massive scale. Humans needed to coordinate, so they agreed on a set of signals that allow them to describe the movements they want other humans to do.
If we think of language not as a “map of the world out there” but rather a stream of bits that allows two minds to coordinate, then I don’t see why human semantics would have data-structures for different elements of fluid dynamics.
In particular, if you ask me to draw a picture of a cloud, it comes out looking like this:
Which I’m pretty sure has stripped all of the fluid-dynamics out of the cloud.
Another example of this is the fact that most knowledge at companies is procedural and cannot in any sense be written down. This is why when key employees leave, or companies try to duplicate the exact same process at a different location, they often find that key steps were missing or left out.
I do think “words point to clusters in mindspace” is somewhat valid. Going back to the “1,2,3, lift!” example, the reason this works is because it allows me to meaningfully point to something in your mind. And if we agree that mindspace maps onto “thingspace” (which it must, since people are able to operate successfully in in thingspace). Then there is probably some indirect mapping “words” → “mindspace” → “thingspace”. But I don’t see any reason why this mapping would need sufficient richness to include all of fluid dynamics. In the “1,2,3, lift!′ example, only 1 bit needs to be communicated (start lifting/stop lifting), not a complete map of the object being lifted. Words are also incredibly situational. If I say “1,2,3, lift!” out of the blue, you’re going to have no idea what I mean.
Once you make the switch from “words are a method to describe particular things in the world” to “words are a tool to access and edit the mental states of other human beings”, it also makes a lot of other phenoma clear. For example, why do people like to argue about definitions. If words are merely a pointer to facts about reality, we should all be able to agree what they are pointing to. But if words are a tool to affect other people’s mental space, then any attempt to redefine a word is also an attempt to control the other person. This also explains why language reform is one of the key tools commonly used by revolutionaries and social movements, and why tabooing a word is a key project of social reformers.