Abstract thought would be impossible with just object signs.

No. I assure you it's not; but you must first try this process I have enveloped.

there is that spur of the moment jolt of energy that comes with the sign ability of marking, that you can synchronize with.

i would go on to say, I do this process on R6 with that sign set in a multiplayer process, and I have to first build tension. I have had others join in I know it works, and gets hyper; where what you are visualizing is as deep as feelings or mind.

Here if I select Sledge, there are automatic thoughts — kill jepetto

Are you saying "automatic thoughts" as part of some game? Or you're claiming that in reality, people have automatic thoughts in relation to anything?

This kind of reminds me of 1984. Not in a good or bad way, just in respect to how artificial both signs and language is.

If we were to experience the world outside our own minds, language would mean nothing. While you have the context of language, a bold claim about the local mayor spray painted on the side of a building means something, but that meaning is lost to those who cannot speak the language. (or if you lack the concept of a language) Essentially, meaning lives inside our minds, and is given to others through language, or symbols as you point out. The problem with this is that different words mean different things to different people. Meaning can be lost or misinterpreted.

One must wonder, is this a flaw of our minds, the language (or symbols) we use, or both. In George Orwell's 1984, the government of Oceania, and presumably the other two world powers, are developing a language that can't be misinterpreted. They are doing this to limit free thinking. They are along the line of thinking that, "If freedom can't be communicated, then it loses meaning and can't exist".

I think that symbols are more efficient in some cases. Traffic signs and turning signals are certainly more efficient than making a giant sign that says "Left turn caution on green" or "I'm going right". I think symbols, however, do leave less room for speculation because of their innate meaning. While efficiency in communication increases, diversity of thought decreases it seems. Not to say that symbols can't convey complex or even abstract thought, but I would rather read a research paper in Spanish than hieroglyphics.

So if the debate is only using language in everyday life versus only using symbols in everyday life, I would argue a happy medium. When society values safety over freedom (like driving) symbols should be used. When society values the diversity of thought over its possible danger, language is used. I honestly couldn't imagine a world where one exists and another doesn't.

No. I assure you it's not; but you must first try this process I have enveloped.

there is that spur of the moment jolt of energy that comes with the sign ability of marking, that you can synchronize with.

i would go on to say, I do this process on R6 with that sign set in a multiplayer process, and I have to first build tension. I have had others join in I know it works, and gets hyper; where what you are visualizing is as deep as feelings or mind. — kill jepetto

To be frank language is symbolic but one that is capable of making fine distinctions and expressing the many shades of meaning a thing can have. What other type of symbolic communication are you talking about. Do you mean something like ♡ = love. Yes the symbol for love exists but it would be useful only if we know what love is and we don't, not exactly at least.

This could just as well be about the pleasure of charades in some non-conventional format.

S + rattle =

:naughty: :strong: :down:

:nerd: :fire: :heart:

Axe + Tree =

From my point of view the transfer of information is valid in any way that allows that information to be received or recorded. Signs or symbols of any sort, as well as any way we have not yet formulated can fill this need. I could imagine a conscious life form in the position of an octopus or squid could transfer information vary efficiently with light for instance. Of course we may not have any idea what they are saying-but that does not mean the method is not sound and perhaps more efficient then audible or written language.

Second, is not every word,(rather written or audible) already a sign. Under the terms you are establishing? Language is like life always progressing in complexity and complexity of meaning.
Is there a more efficient word? Always it seems to be.

symbols can't convey complex or even abstract thought.

Words in the form of text are symbols, just abstract symbols.

An icon is a non abstract symbol depicting an object, action or emotion.

But there is nothing that says we couldn't communicate with graphic icons only.

It's just very difficult to start over and associate graphic symbols with anstract meanings.

Words such as belong, claim, esoteric etc would be difficult to describe with icons.

But some things become much more universal and are much more efficiently described with pictures.

One way to communicate an abstract word, would be to show several different examples of an action. This in order to show that it is not the specific action but the common denominator. For example the word belong could be visualised as three icons that depict things that really belong to eachother. But we would still have to have some abstract symbols that communicates how we are supposed to interpret non abstract images.

If we are supposed to interpret them literally or abstract.

However these abstract symbols can be given their meaning by repeating them between two images.

For example the symbol for need could be repeated between and image of a withered flower the symbol and water, a boy reaching for an apple the symbol and a ladder, someone on a bicycle with no wheels the symbol and bicycle wheels.

This could still be interpreted as the word lacks or misses.
But perhaps we could define a symbol for those words by showing examples of images that lacks things but without showing what they lack.

A boy with only one shoes, a bicycle with only one wheel, a a girl with only one glove.

This way abstract meanings can be assigned and built up from example images.

This way we could start to translate written languages atleast simple languages into sequences of visual images that anyone can understand.

I think you may have accidentally taken what I said out of context.

Not to say that symbols can't convey complex or even abstract thought, but I would rather read a research paper in Spanish than hieroglyphics. — TogetherTurtle

We are in agreeance. Apologies for any confusion.

Yes, words are like a sign set as exampled in the first picture; the problem is it's not the best set. We live in a world where a set is already defined and we have branched from that set with words.

That set, the set of the human body and world, and all parts within it.

Confusion arises when we compare a word world with a sign world, when it should be the opposite!

As said, we already have the necessary tools to describe any concept (whether abstract or normal), to just one person or one group of people (words make conveying this information to billions efficent).

As well as spur of the moment signs (referring to sensed objects, feelings, experience, etc), there is also drawing (that's what a word is, a drawing), and anything can be explained this way.

Have you ever heard the idiom, "reinventing the wheel"? Maybe that one could be symbolised with a hammer in combination with a wheel. (Or maybe we could just say it).

No, because love is a word.

I could whistle with you in syncronization as minor-conversational-tension rises, and whistle louder at the tender points, such as, when it is deemed that I've been whistling too much - I whistle a little quieter - and in that moment I've 'talked' through whistle, I've rationalized with the conversation, converged, to the level of what whistling is agreeable.

I could then walk with you, whistling, and as we pass a bird I whistle a little louder; then you've taken it as a pointer (when I whistled loud, I was clearly on about the birds in close vicinity).

This spur of the moment sign has much potential, you and I are not automatically stupid. We can grasp what others mean through the simplest stimuli.

If we substitute whistling for every tone and sound we can make, or movement, or special effect; just this one example sheds light onto the greater picture where there is room for improvement.

I agree, but we're all sort of restricted to the word here; because it's not "reinventing the wheel", which we should think, but some abstraction of the symbol of hammer and wheel, better thought "..." or "silent", not with the word additive. It doesn't play like charades, but charades is a good example of sign potential.

I agree, but we're all sort of restricted to the word here; because it's not "reinventing the wheel", which we should think, but some abstraction of the symbol of hammer and wheel, better thought "..." or "silent", not with the word additive. — kill jepetto

That we're all sort of restricted to the word is not a bad thing. You can do more complex things with words. You'd just be reinventing the wheel, meaning that you'd be creating an inferior language for one we already have.

It would be a terrible idea to replace the keyboard I'm using with a pictogram. The pictogram was one of the earliest forms of language for a reason. That was 3000 years ago. We've come a long way since then. Our development lead to the English language. Imagine Shakespeare in pictogram! :lol:

I think adhering to the lesser set of words over the greater set of any drawing kind of alters what we are thought to think when reading the symbol of a hammer and wheel; yes, like Catchphraze, 'reinventing the wheel', but on a serious note, that is holding the conversation back from a more affluent signing. For example, adding another picture to the mix is boring, if we think it's 'reiventing the wheel', but if it was wordless, the sign capacity is funner, and more advanced; perhaps, adding in an image of a horse and 4 buildings to depict 400 horse power; 'reinventing the wheel' is treating the sign as a small time game, but interpreting sign for immediate sign value only, is more a serious life style; again held back by words.

Yet I agree with you in general. The best sign symbol word language is the one that potentially allows for the most information to be encompassed by that sign, symbol,word or language and that for transfer can also be understood by at least one other consciousness.

I could whistle with you in syncronization as minor-conversational-tension rises, and whistle louder at the tender points, such as, when it is deemed that I've been whistling too much - I whistle a little quieter - and in that moment I've 'talked' through whistle, I've rationalized with the conversation, converged, to the level of what whistling is agreeable.

I could then walk with you, whistling, and as we pass a bird I whistle a little louder; then you've taken it as a pointer (when I whistled loud, I was clearly on about the birds in close vicinity).

This spur of the moment sign has much potential, you and I are not automatically stupid. We can grasp what others mean through the simplest stimuli.

If we substitute whistling for every tone and sound we can make, or movement, or special effect; just this one example sheds light onto the greater picture where there is room for improvement. — kill jepetto

I've heard of whistling languages but they such languages, if you can call it such, have a very limited range. Proper language like the one we're using in having this conversation is more versatile. It's not perfect, I agree, but it's far better than whistling I'm sure.