[net.philosophy] I think You think I think You think I think You think . . .

williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (09/10/84)

> On the other hand, it could be asserted that *none* of the
> statements in the example list say anything about the strength of
> the interconnection of sky to blue.  They are *all* statements
> about the speaker's confidence. Consider statements like: 

> I know the sky is blue. 
> I think the sky is blue. 
> I know the sky might be blue. 
> I think the sky might be blue. 

> Confidence and strength of asssociation vary independently of one
> another, or so it seems to me. 

> "Words are tools, m'am, like screwdrivers and pistols."

> Kevin D. Kissell

	Essentially, it is the speaker who makes the connections, 
and it is the audience who makes the interpretations. The 
validity of the concept being proposed is judged in accordance 
with the way in which the symbols fit together. One must have 
confidence in the speaker if anything of value is to be 
understood. It is the speaker which generates the strength of 
interconnection, and not just the sentence. It is the sentence 
that the speaker uses in order to express himself. The sentence 
is only a popular method, and not nessesarily the only means of 
expression. Confidence and strength of association are closely 
coupled together, it is difficult to have one without the other.

	As for words:

	Toys . . . learning, non-supportive
	Tools  . . skill, self-supportive
	Weapons  . wisdom, mutually-supportive

	The phasing from toys to tools to weapons is the way in 
which intelligence evolves. We are just now learning the mistakes 
of using weapons against one another, and how they might be used 
for the mutual benifit of mankind. ( <- I thought it might be 
appropriate to add that ) Intelligent beings are simply not born 
mature. This means we are less efficient than reptiles, but we 
are able to evolve more quickly. This is also the difference 
between synchronization and communication.

	< This sentence is grammatically incorrect >

	< This sentence is grammatically incomplete >

	< This sentence refers to itself >

	< If this sentence were not self referential, the comma
		would not be nessesary >

      < Repeated in this sentence is repeated in this sentence >

			And . . .

	< Every sentence is a question >

		< Some language. >

				----{ john williams }----

(DEC E-NET)	KIRK::WILLIAMS
(UUCP)		{decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams
(ARPA)		williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
		williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA