Let's take "socialism" -- I'm not sure I could write a dialogue demonstrating, but maybe our experiences with this word could suffice?
What does "socialism" mean?
There's more than one definition that people would offer, even among those who'd say they are socialists.
And there's a strange mixture of misunderstanding and half-understanding and pop-understanding along with more precise understandings of the meaning of socialism. — Moliere
This is I think a good example of what I suggested as elaboration. The multiple people who say "socialism" misunderstand what it is the others are saying. If instead they each communicated a couple of paragraphs explaining exactly what their view of socialism is, will this not reduce the misunderstanding? — PhilosophyRunner
Those people may still disagree on which detailed view is the one we should strive for, but that is then not a misunderstanding of meaning, but a disagreement (in the vein you talked about).
If Scruffy happens by just then, he takes this as an affront to his status; it could be a challenge. He doesn't just shove his larger head into the bowl, forcing the other one aside, as the outside cats assert seniority; he makes an issue of it. He huffs, flattens his ears and utters that low throaty mwaaa sound. — Vera Mont
Back to the topic: this might or might not be what Moliere is interested in. D2 did not engage in a misunderstood communicative behavior, but may nevertheless have been misinterpreted. (That's word's a little tendentious, but who cares.) Now if we say that the reason we (a big enough "we" to include cats) interpret each other's utterances is to divine each other's intentions, same as with other behaviors, since utterance is verbal behavior, then what Scruffy did is what we're interested in, since it's where verbal interpretation ends up.*
But there may still be a problem, because D2's behavior, unlike speech, and unlike Scruffy's display and vocalization, was not intended to be communicative. That would seem to put this event outside @Moliere's theme. Unless we want to say something deflationary about communicative intentions, which we certainly could. — Srap Tasmaner
Maybe the question is -- is there a time when a definition is true? Can we insist that a particular meaning is true of an utterance? Then the disagreement is about the meaning itself rather than, or perhaps also in addition to, disagreeing upon what we should strive for (or whatever it is the dispute is over). — Moliere
But your interpretation of Scruffy works for my purposes of misunderstanding one another: D2 was not challenging Scruffy, Scruffy interpreted it as a challenge and issued their own challenge, D2 shuffled off.
I'm not sure this is exactly right, though -- but I'd say that because my thought has more to do with symbolic meaning than communication: the meaning which signs have. — Moliere
It would be interesting if there were cases of a non-human misinterpreting a signal, or if there were never such cases. — Srap Tasmaner
But there may still be a problem, because D2's behavior, unlike speech, and unlike Scruffy's display and vocalization, was not intended to be communicative. — Srap Tasmaner
Yes, that's humans for you! Overcomplicate everything.My thought is that some signs, like democracy or socialism, don't have such a straightforward symbolic meaning, that they have a multitude of associations that make it difficult to pin down something straigtforward. — Moliere
Neither would any human who has not been specifically instructed in arithmetic. But that's not part a natural language. That's a specialized artificial language invented by adults to keep track of their possessions and punish their children. Apes in laboratories can learn a great many human-invented symbols that have no function or meaning in the ape's world, just as dogs and horses learn unnatural behaviours under human tutelage. I don't see many humans learning to read urine tags or the wind. Different forms of communication can be acquired with study and practrice, but they don't come equally easily to all species or individuals.But even the great apes don't seem to understand that 7+5/12=1, — Moliere
Plus a big, super-convoluted and oxygenated brain. Of course, that can sometimes be a handicap, as well: difficult birth, long maturation period, a ridiculous number of possible ways to malfunction, both individually and societally.our trans-genomic-adaptability is our main advantage, I think. — Moliere
I don't know. The young of the more sophisticated species are taught by their mother the rudiments of expected behaviour, and the social ones have their education enhanced by other members of the pack, flock or troop. I would imagine that vocal communication would be included in that education (crows are certainly vocal enough, especially when instructing the fledglings - everybody participates.) Maybe Jane Goodall has been privy to these communications, but I don't suppose many humans are. Konrad Lorenz had some interesting observations about geese and jackdaws, wolves and dogs in King Solomon's Ring.. Not clear to me whether there's anything conventional about signaling systems among other animals or not. — Srap Tasmaner
I suspect it does not happen. And I suspect vervet monkeys never mistakenly make the wrong warning call, i.e. misspeak. (On a related note, I believe they only call out "snake" is they believe there are other monkeys nearby to warn; it would also be nice to know if they ever mistakenly call or keep silent, but that's a side issue.) But there's no point in guessing and the world is a surprising place. — Srap Tasmaner
His response was. — Vera Mont
small isolated societies — PhilosophyRunner
The young of the more sophisticated species are taught by their mother the rudiments of expected behaviour, and the social ones have their education enhanced by other members of the pack, flock or troop. — Vera Mont
For 'static', substitute 'stable'. Ructions and upheavals generally had an external cause, rather than dissent within the group. When a serious difference of opinion arose, a group might split and go separate ways, rather than start a civil war the way more complex, heterogeneous societies might: almost nobody wants to kill his uncle or cousin.There's something else I wanted to say, but I think it might rely on what amounts to a myth that traditional societies as not only homogeneous but static. — Srap Tasmaner
Why should that be? Have you never seen brothers and sisters fight? Anyway, tribal societies were not so isolated as all that. They generally had trade relations with several other communities, and big social gatherings a couple of times a year, with dancing and feasting - particularly so that young people could meet potential mates from other groups.My thought was that homogeneity could also cut the other way because members of such a society would have so little experience of divergent views — Srap Tasmaner
Not really. People have been studying avian behaviour for a long time, making videos and recordings. Might be worth your while to seek out some nature shows on You Tube.Right, there's certainly training of some kind in something, but it's hard to pin down the details. — Srap Tasmaner
My stance is that within social conventions, yes a definition can be wrong as defined within those social conventions. Different social groups may define the word differently (different dialects, slang, technical jargon, etc).
Outside a social convention, no. — PhilosophyRunner
Conventional (what Grice calls "non-natural") meaning leaves an opening to attach the wrong meaning to an utterance; — Srap Tasmaner
Plus a big, super-convoluted and oxygenated brain. — Vera Mont
Neither would any human who has not been specifically instructed in arithmetic. — Vera Mont
Yes, that's humans for you! Overcomplicate everything. — Vera Mont
As if to say "Abandon All Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"? — Moliere
I believe humans tend toward overcomplication because they combine reasoning capacity with imagination. That imagination has been most useful in many ways, but when it uses reason as a vehicle, rather than other way around, it drives us into quagmires of weird and twisted thinking.Researchers have published reports of octopuses gathering in large groups on the seafloor, sharing dens, using color and gesture to communicate, and forming cooperative hunting parties with fish.
Weird, twisted -- and fun — Moliere
To disagree, after coming to understand one another, on definitions is to disagree upon social convention. — Moliere
Hrm!
Well, that wasn't as hard as I thought then. Unless there are lingering doubts out there.
But how do you make that move, maybe? If I were to tell someone in a conversation about democracy "look we understand one another, we're just disagreeing on conventions" -- how do you make that disagreement into a productive disagreement rather than the termination? — Moliere
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.