So there's two distinct things here: context-dependence, and categories. We can discern the difference between 'book' in "Do we need to book a table?" and in "The Idiot is Dostoevsky's best book" based on the context, i.e the rest of the sentence. Where this is not possible, we have genuine ambiguity. A specific book is a specific element of the category 'book'. We can recognise all trees as 'tree' because all trees have something in common that (mostly) distinguishes each from everything that is not 'tree'.

How does the brain define so well without defining ? — Benj96

Brain does it mainly while you grow, mainly within the first 4-5 years of your childhood.
Your brain learns how to interact with objects, learn to create concepts, categories and words associated.
So if during your learning period you always see books linked to oranges and you learn the word "book" and "orange" those 2 ideas will associated in your brain very strongly and will be hard to separate them during the rest of your life as your brain gets less plasticity.
It is very interesting and instructive to see how AI convolutional networks designed for vision learn and how conceptual hierarchies (from the line up to the higher concepts of nose, eyes up to facial recognition) get encoded to understand the landscapes-of-concepts are encoded in neural-traces close one another.
This video illustrates it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu0MkmynWkw&ab_channel=GeneKogan
I find Yosinski tool to visualize CNN great for this.

Our brain treats information similarly.

Interesting. What about in the case of words that denote undefinable thing like “abstraction”, “unknown” or “undefinable” and “mysterious” “ambiguous” ... if we make meaning out of associating small pieces of information how to we crest a sense of “the lack of information”? Surely there has to be a part of the brain that deals with that which has no meaning, is absurd and cannot be connected coherently or logically with other ideas.

Right, all those words you mention are words you learn. You not only learn the words but how to use them, in which context and situations (objective external situations and subjective).
This way you understand to express when you don't know to use "unknown" that you learn is similar to "mystery" and so on...
Then our brain has the capabilities to create novelty, what we call imagination as well as to abstract. But this is not different from our capabilities to learn language. In this case we put together things that you haven't seen together before (like artists or researches do) but is like when you see a baby playing and creating new things. Have you seen how creative babies are? Is because our brains have the capability to manipulate as well as simulate new combinations. And those that resonate get conscious and if they have a social value resonate further and get famous discoveries...
Our brains are heuristic and stochastic machines...

When do things become really complex? When our self, our ego raises, within a competitive society with certain culture and it aspires to be the center of the universe. This anthropocentric view that situates humans as being metaphysical, spiritual, etc... but those are all social illusions.

I recommend you read a bit of Naturalism of Andler or Nannini.

A map is not the territory and a word is not the thing itself. Words are simply sounds in the air which point to things which are not sounds in the air. The sound itself is irrelevant, hence all the different languages. By the association of things with abstract sounds, a language is developed, which is useful for communication, but should not be confused with reality. Regardless of how well I describe the taste of something, it’s not the same as actually eating and experiencing it.

I recommend you read a bit of Naturalism of Andler or Nannini. — Raul

Thank you very much you’re very articulate in your explanation. Makes sense to me. I’ll add this t my reading list

Regardless of how well I describe the taste of something, it’s not the same as actually eating and experiencing it. — Present awareness

What would you make of synethesia which is word based... for example you always see the word green as The colour green or you always smell petrol when you read the word petrol. This would equate to the word being also the thing it describes. A self referential word. Or the the word “word” Or the sound of “sound” which is exactly what it is. Can some language actually be the thing it means rather than pointing to something else indirectly ?

Also the word “I” can only ever be referential to the thing saying it. Only “I”s say “I”

What would you make of synethesia which is word based... for example you always see the word green as The colour green or you always smell petrol when you read the word petrol. — Benj96

How would that even happen if the person didn't make an association between the scribble or sound and what it points to prior to seeing and hearing those words?

Also the word “I” can only ever be referential to the thing saying it. Only “I”s say “I” — Benj96

So? Who is speaking to whom about what is a type of context in which we use scribbles and sounds. "I" is still pointing to something.

Establishing context is no different than a computer running an IF-THEN-ELSE statement in its memory. If the self refers to itself, then use "I" else use "you".

fair points

take the colour green, for example, you say it and I say it, but there is no way of knowing whether we are both seeing the same colour, only that we are both calling the colour that we do see “green”. Seeing colour is a personal experience, which would make it impossible to describe to someone whom was blind from birth. Only when two or more people share the same or similar experience, may it be pointed to and a sound made to represent what it will be called.

For language to be useful words must have a definition, sentiment or meaning held in them that is mutually understood by the collective. — Benj96

Do they?

I've a tree poppy in a pot outside. It's about 60cm high, so it's not a tree, yet. It will apparently grow to a height of a couple of metres. Is it a tree or a shrub? Does that make its name wrong?

Its name is useful. I can ask Wife where we should plant out the tree poppy, and she knows what I'm on about. I can order another one from the supplier by asking by name. But I could not offer a definition that would sort tree poppies out from other poppies or shrubs.

The supplier and my wife might have talked about Romneya coulteri, a name which perhaps has a suitable definition in some archaic botanical source. But we don't.

Indeed, if you look around you might notice that folk get by for the most part without "a definition, sentiment or meaning held in them that is mutually understood by the collective".

This is one of the odd things pointed out by Old Wittgenstein. It seems that words can be quite useful without previously agreed on definitions.

It's the use that is important.

How does the brain define so well without defining ? — Benj96

Dictionaries help with communication, but there must be something more than definitions. What is it? Is it that we're innately wired to gesture and talk to each other? With exact wording being a function of a particular social environment?

Or do we start out as blank slates and not only learn dictionary meanings, but a whole repertoire of unspoken signaling by the time we're 2 years old?

I think it's mostly the former. What do you think?

Well we could try to hypothesise of an experiment where a baby or better yet several children are raised by mute parents. The parent is given strict instructions to never speak to the children and to minimise the diversity of their body gestures - so as to not develop a complex sign language. Furthermore they are asked to only respond/tend to the needs of an infant when it stops crying or project vocalisations of any kind (to as much of a degree as is safe to do without neglecting the basic survival needs of the infant).

As the child grows it will come to understand that silence is how to gain the attention of a parent. What would the child make of this? How would they battle an insurmountable dilemma where they cannot express themselves neither vocally nor in gesture? Would they spend all their time mute because it elicits comforting responses from the parent - living in an internal world where so long as they remain fugue they will be nourished and taken care of. Or Would the child decide to communicate with other children and blatantly refuse to follow the ways of the adults creating maybe their own language with their childhood brethren and perhaps try to teach it to their mute expressionless parents?

This could possibly determine if language spontaneously occurs (is hardwired into our makeup) or is a cultural/ social adaptation of lower forms of communication.

Of course we could never do this experiment because it is grossly unethical on several orders of magnitude and generally negligent to the wellbeing of the children. One would imagine that their would be an extremely high mortality rate as children test the boundaries of what is safe and unsafe with no verbal or physical cues/ education from their wiser parents. Maybe some would survive from being cautious and watching what happened to the more daring children.


If you ask me language isn’t just separate from the biological mechanics of the body. One requires breathing, a complex throat structure, muscles, innervation, motor control and reflexes, a tongue and oral cavity and negative feedback via the auditory system to even be in with a chance at speech - all of which are provided By genetic development and growth of the body.

I think speech is a product of much evolution of more basic forms of control of the environment. We are essentially equipped to control the frequencies and pressure of air through an apparatus and if we did not have this words would be pointless. They would not exist if but only for in our minds and why would we have complex arrangements of sounds recorded in our mind if we could never produce them in the first place to hear what they sound like?

Without exposure to speech thought would likely be drastically different to what we understand it to be... perhaps it would be entirely visual with children thinking in a “film Clip” like fashion ... wordless.

This could possibly determine if language spontaneously occurs (is hardwired into our makeup) or is a cultural/ social adaptation of lower forms of communication. — Benj96

I don't think we could rule out native capacity that way. Some people have the potential for athletic excellence, but they still need training to actualize skill. Could be the same with language.

think speech is a product of much evolution of more basic forms of control of the environment — Benj96

I agree. I think our willingness to seek healthcare is an extension of the body's own healing capabilities. Maybe that's pervasively true? Speaking is an extension of the body.

I agree with (and Wittgenstein). The idea can be taken a bit too far, if one implies that consensus on definitional meanings and their consistent use by the community are not part of the system of language. But only part, and the rest is practice first and linguistics after the fact. Lack of technical rigor in the definition of words or robustness in their use is not always objectionable. The important part is their application, which can be to convey sentiment, intent, signal a social innuendo, etc, and not necessarily unambiguously. Words are not described in encapsulated definition, but by their relationship to other words, eventually to those, that the user has encountered in their experience with the language.

I wanted to remark something else. Inaccurate expressions are assumed risk of communication and can represent their own phenomena. Many factors determine the use words, which aside from circumstances, can be micro-cultures, regional specifics, etc. The application of language in an obtuse fashion or use of dialects that deviate from the "literary standard" can later be incorporated into the official vocabulary and become proper language usage.

If you ask me language isn’t just separate from the biological mechanics of the body. — Benj96

I don't think that language is essential aspect of intelligence, but it is believed that evolution of human beings in terms of their communication and mental apparatus transpired at about the same time. Might have been in a causal manner, with communication coming first, although evolutionary processes are staged and it makes little difference. You are probably right that we have a lot hardwired into us that predisposes us to receptiveness of elaborate communication patterns, although genetics are likely no more than potential that activates by the environment, including social environment.

Noam Chomsky is, I believe, a major proponent of the hypothesis of genetic predisposition to language. I'll see if I can dig some videos later.

Edit:
Noam Chomsky interview on Language and Knowledge (1977)
This one is interview with Bryan Magee, where I remember that Chomsky elaborated his views on the innate drive of human beings for linguistic expression.
Language Design - Noam Chomsky / Serious Science
This interview contains some sketching of the relationship between language and intelligence in historical terms.
The Concept of Language (Noam Chomsky)
This interview contains Chomsky describing how language emerges organically through micro-cultures, political events, etc. It emphasizes that the official language is consequent phenomenon.

This one I just skimmed through now:
Noam Chomsky - Language and Thought
The statement made here is that language unlike animal signalling is inclined to form more abstract correspondence with reality, more suited for mental processing.

This one I could not understand in detail, but it appears to be about some feedback mechanism that language facilitates and its parallels with some particular forms of insect signaling:
Noam Chomsky - The Function of Language

ts name is useful. I can ask Wife where we should plant out the tree poppy, and she knows what I'm on about. I can order another one from the supplier by asking by name. But I could not offer a definition that would sort tree poppies out from other poppies or shrubs. — Banno

Actually upon further consideration I’m not even sure if a word has to be mutually agreed upon at all in order to have useful meaning. You may call it a tree poppy and your wife might say what? Do you mean the Romneya coulteri And the supplier again may have another name “X” for it and you may all bicker about what it actually is but in the end just decide to plant it.

And while planting it you each refer to it with your own term that neither of the other two agree with/ refuse to call it yet you can all still cooperate as a group (understanding from context what the other two are referring to) and plant it.

I guess this shows that context overcomes simple word definitions.

Actually upon further consideration I’m not even sure if a word has to be mutually agreed upon at all in order to have useful meaning. You may call it a tree poppy and your wife might say what? Do you mean the Romneya coulteri And the supplier again may have another name “X” for it and you may all bicker about what it actually is but in the end just decide to plant it. — Benj96

Could all words be like this? Or just a few here and there?

Actually upon further consideration I’m not even sure if a word has to be mutually agreed upon at all in order to have useful meaning. — Benj96

...and then we can go into derangements of epitaphs, where it is the wrongness of the utterance that is what is cogent...

Its name is useful. — Banno

How/why is a name useful? Useful for what? What are scribbles and sounds from your mouth useful for? To use something means that you have a goal. What is the goal in the mind when using names?

This is one of the odd things pointed out by Old Wittgenstein. It seems that words can be quite useful without previously agreed on definitions.

It's the use that is important. — Banno

How did you learn to use words? For instance, how did you learn to use the scribble/sound, "shrub" or "tree"?, if not by your teacher pointing to these things, or pictures of these things and then showing/saying the scribblee/sound that points to it? Using words isn't much different than using your pointer finger. Saying, "It is raining." is redundant when I'm looking out the window and I see it raining.

Pointing to pictures is easier to define words for those that don't yet know how to use most of the words in a language (like first graders). Once you do, then dictionaries become useful for learning the definitions of the words that you still don't know the meaning to.

Actually upon further consideration I’m not even sure if a word has to be mutually agreed upon at all in order to have useful meaning. — Benj96

Why would you use a word for your own personal use? If you see that it is raining outside, do you also need to tell yourself that it is raining outside? Words are only useful to tell others who don't see that it is raining outside, that it is raining outside.

How/why is a name useful? — Harry Hindu

...as if it had only one use...?

Thats not what I asked or implied.

Your "meaning is use" is either too trivial or too vague. Either way, it isn't useful.

Do they?

I've a tree poppy in a pot outside. It's about 60cm high, so it's not a tree, yet. It will apparently grow to a height of a couple of metres. Is it a tree or a shrub? Does that make its name wrong?

Its name is useful. I can ask Wife where we should plant out the tree poppy, and she knows what I'm on about. I can order another one from the supplier by asking by name. But I could not offer a definition that would sort tree poppies out from other poppies or shrubs.

The supplier and my wife might have talked about Romneya coulteri, a name which perhaps has a suitable definition in some archaic botanical source. But we don't.

Indeed, if you look around you might notice that folk get by for the most part without "a definition, sentiment or meaning held in them that is mutually understood by the collective".

This is one of the odd things pointed out by Old Wittgenstein. It seems that words can be quite useful without previously agreed on definitions.

It's the use that is important — Banno

A couple of points:

1. I'm sympathetic to Wittgenstein's point of view that there are clear instances of words being used in such a fashion that precludes the identification of an essence to them. In such cases then, the best course of action would be to abandon philosophical projects that depend on there being a unifying theme to the various ways in which a particular word is used - it would all be in vain. Under these circumstances, the most reasonable way of doing philosophy would be to study words, thus concepts, within the context (form of life/language game) in which they appear.

However,

2. For Wittgenstein's theory of language games, it's necessary that there isn't a single case of word misuse. Words would be used correctly, without any possibility of error - all that's needed to prove this would be to show particular language games that given words are participating in. So, when I use the word "god" as a Christian, it has a meaning within the language game of Christianity and when I use "god" as a Buddhist, I would be talking about something else entirely because the language game for Buddhism is a different ballgame.

This doesn't make sense. Why?

A word can be misused only if the meaning intended for one language game is transposed into another language game. However, how would we determine such errors if not the case that there are definitions, even if the definitions are confined to particular language games. In other words, though meanings of words differ with the language games they take part in, the meanings within each language game has to be based on an essence.