Re: 3 shades and you are out?

From: Immortalist (Reanimater_2000_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/09/04 

Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:12:11 -0700

"Just Playing" <gms2004@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:543191fc.0410081547.44795d5d@posting.google.com...
> "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?
>

Well, the answer to that one is complex and at the same time simple; at critical
phase transitions like when water turns into ice or water boils into a gas, every
dynamic of motions and sized objects have their harmony. Letters and words or
sentences or paragraphs... there are natural boundaries...

http://images.google.com/images?q=bifurcation

> 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".
>

Once we reach a point where we can't hold the symbols its time to chunk them so
each chunk contains all the elements remembered that last round.

> 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