Re: 3 shades and you are out?

From: Just Playing (gms2004_at_lycos.com)
Date: 10/08/04 

Date: 8 Oct 2004 16:47:49 -0700

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<w4SdnVtjtL8NW_vcRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
> "Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:543191fc.0410080751.3ffedca@posting.google.com...
> > A description, word, noun, category, class, etc. can be characterized
> > by any criterion in 2 opposite ways, good or bad, up or down, left or
> > right, etc.
>
> > Each of these 2 ways can then be differentiated by 3 degrees, shades
> > as in good, better, best or bad, worse, worst.
>
> > What happens after we exhaust all these combinations?
>
> > Do we have to create a new description, word, noun, category, class?
> > If 3 is the number of differences, shades you can describe in one of
> > the opposites of a description, word, noun, class, category, it seems
> > that whenever you have more differences, shades you either have to use
> > a different criterion to describe it or create a new word,
> > description, noun, class, category.
>
> > So, paraphrasing the 3 strikes and you out, can we say to a word,
> > category that after 3 shades you are out, and create a new word,
> > category?
>
> > Or if we do not create another word or category but use instead
> > another criterion with the same 2 opposite ways, how many criteria can
> > we use before the number of combinations become too large for normal
> > communication?
>
> > If these assumptions are correct can we look at vocabulary and try to
> > analyze it along these lines? Or it has been done already?
>
> We keep the initial "chunks" and then create the categories
> less-than-this-chunk/this.chunk/more-than-this-chunk.
>
Just Playing

You are right. But how far can you go before it becomes confusing? Is
there a range beyond which you need to create new terms, words,
categories?

JP

> If the chunk is of distance we might use chunk scales of measurment. In America
> for instance if you are describing less-than-this-chunk distances and the
> unit-chunk is "a yard" then once it becomes confusing you jump down to the next
> (scale) which is "the foot" and further if necessary to "the inch."

Just Playing

Perfect exemplification for the need to create new terms, words..

JP

 As far as distance distinctions go the only real chunking problems
arise when the are
> between the scales is described in more and more detail as in adding decimal
> points from 1.3456 yards to 1.3452 yards which would tanslate into "a little more
> than a little less that a yard and a half yard, to a little less than a little
> more than a little less than a yard and a half." HA. In this case we migh note
> the yard and then move into descriptions of differences between so many feet and
> inches to another degree of feet and inches.
>
> But if we are describing chunk sizes, like the difference between three molecules
> and a grain of salt, it can get equally confusing. In biological things we might
> describe something as bigger or smaller than and atom, molecule, macro-molecule,
> organelle, cell, multi-cellular structure, tissue, organ, organism, species,
> etc... but if we describe physical objects we might resort back to distance
> comparisons and wind up in gibberishy areas...
>
> BUT one must remember the constraints of the possible in relation to holding all
> this in working or short term memory and its constraints;
>
> Prior to the creation of current memory models, George Miller argued that human
> short-term memory can store approximately seven items...
>
> While an item can indeed be a single digit or letter, it can also be a whole
> number, word, or abstract concept. Memorising 12 digits (e.g., 1, 9, 6, 6, 1, 7,
> 8 , 8, 1, 0, 6, 6) is a difficult task; memorising them as three dates (i.e.,
> 1966, 1788, and 1066) is comparatively easier.

Just Playing

Interesting. It may give a clue into measuring the "mental capacity".

JP

This is because the first approach
> requires storage of 12 separate items, whereas the second only requires the
> storage of 3. This process was referred to by Miller as "chunking"...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_memory
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking
>
> Now beyound that I think you have to ask Mr. Wittgenstein or someone like him;
>
> ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND WITTGENSTEIN'S PICTURE THEORY OF THE PROPOSITION -Kieran
> Cashell
> http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol2/cashell.html
>
> Synopsis: Wittgenstein's Logic of Language
> http://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/logwitt1.html
>
> If things get beyond that then yea are in the real *** and puke of the world and
> must wing it and make some stuff up on the fly my man!

Just Playing

Thank you for the references but at this point I am just playing..

JP

Quantcast