tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22705470.post8806747264934571000..comments2023-10-15T07:58:07.271-04:00Comments on Jake to Universe: Pizza, Chinese, or Schnitzel?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08483850399800083505noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22705470.post-23738891548494908832006-11-29T00:25:00.000-05:002006-11-29T00:25:00.000-05:00gosh. i guess i should take a class with dreyfus n...gosh. i guess i should take a class with dreyfus next, so i can grok heidegger.<br /><br />it's an interesting question, does your friend know how he speaks chinese. certainly it's the case that proficiency in our native language isn't something we remember ever consciously trying to acquire. in some ways, native speakers are the worst people to talk to about the structural details of their language. i have tried asking native chinese speakers "but what does 'de' MEAN? why do you have to put it there?" usually they say "you just do. because that's what sounds right." what do we make of this? that we are just dumbly following hardwired programs every time we open our mouths? but how can that be, when language is infinitely varied, infinitely creative?<br /><br />it is the case that the forms of language are signifiers, and that they map to signifieds. and those signifieds aren't just isolated pictures, as if the word "tree" just mapped onto a canonical image of an oak tree or some such. think of a tree for a moment. now think about what you imagined...was it growing in the ground? in a forest, in a field, in a city? was it tall, lots of branches? good for climbing? did it offer shade, or fruit?<br /><br />meaning is not so simple, and it seems to be the case that our cognitive representations of things in the world are frame-based. that is, they are organized into domains of related experiential knowledge. that is, you can't talk about "tuesday" without an understanding of monday, wednesday, a week... which in turn is fully understood as a figure against the ground of a month, a year, the gregorian calendar, etc.etc. and we cannot conceptualize any of this without relying on our metaphors for time, how we think and talk about its flowing past us or our moving through it. if you start to pull on a thread, the whole sweater just comes apart. <br /><br />in the face of all this, i guess it shouldn't really be so surprising that computers don't understand eating pizza. the better question is: how could it be possible that we *do*?amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07640926574408467443noreply@blogger.com