Re: 3 shades and you are out?

From: Just Playing (gms2004_at_lycos.com)
Date: 10/09/04 

Date: 9 Oct 2004 07:43:11 -0700

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<rJadnWV0X_0ByvrcRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
> "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...
>

Just Playing

That is obvious and a word has to be created to differentiate new
states.
I guess I am more interested in what you call "natural boundaries" and
if anybody tried to quantify them.

JP

> 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".
> >
> > > JP

> 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.
>
Just Playing
My question is more if there is a way to find the "point where we
can't hold the symbols"?
Can we measure how much information we can handle before we need to
create new sumbols?

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