Didn't read the whole wall of text/slop, but noticed how the first note (referred from "the intuition I developed of the years of thinking deeply about these problems[0]") is nonsensical in the context. If this is reply is indeed AI-generated, it hilariously self-disproves itself this way. I would congratulate you for the irony, but I have a feeling this is not intentional.
I'd like to congratulate you on writing a wall of text that gave off all the signals of being written by a conspiracy theorist or crank or someone off their meds, yet also such that when I bothered to read it, I found it to be completely level-headed. Nothing you claimed felt the least bit outrageous to me. I actually only read it because it looked like it was going to be deliciously unhinged ravings.
“The meaning of words and concepts is derived entirely from relationships between concepts” would be a pretty outrageous statement to me.
The meaning of words is derived from our experience of reality.
Words is how the experiencing self classifies experienced reality into a lossy shared map for the purposes of communication with other similarly experiencing selves, and without that shared experience words are meaningless, no matter what graph you put them in.
> The meaning of words is derived from our experience of reality.
I didn't say "words". I said "concepts"[0].
> Words is how the experiencing self classifies experienced reality into a lossy shared map for the purposes of communication with other similarly experiencing selves, and without that shared experience words are meaningless, no matter what graph you put them in.
Sure, ultimately everything is grounded in some experiences. But I'm not talking about grounding, I'm talking about the mental structures we build on top of those. The kind of higher-level, more abstract thinking (logical or otherwise) we do, is done in terms of those structures, not underlying experiences.
Also: you can see what I mean by "meaning being defined in terms of relationships" if you pick anything, any concept - "a tree", "blue sky", "a chair", "eigenvector", "love", anything - and try to fully define what it means. You'll find the only way you can do it is by relating it to some other concepts, which themselves can only be defined by relating them to other concepts. It's not an infinite regression, eventually you'll reach some kind of empirical experience that can be used as anchor - but still, most of your effort will be spent drawing boundaries in concept space.
--
[0] - And WRT. LLMs, tokens are not words either; if that wasn't obvious 2 years ago, it should be today, now that multimodal LLMs are commonplace. The fact that this - tokenizing video and audio and other modalities into the same class of tokens as text, and embedding them in the same latent space - worked spectacularly well - is pretty informative to me. For one, it's a much better framework to discuss the paradox of Sapir-Whorf hypotheses than whatever was mentioned on Wikipedia to date
You wrote “meaning of words and concepts”, which was already a pretty wild phrase mixing up completely different ideas…
A word is a lexical unit, whereas a concept consists of 1) a number of short designations (terms, usually words, possibly various symbols) that stand for 2) a longer definition (created traditionally through the use of other terms, a.k.a. words).
> I'm talking about the mental structures we build on top of those
Which are always backed by experience of reality, even the most “abstract” things we talk about.
> You'll find the only way you can do it is by relating it to some other concepts
Not really. There is no way to fully communicate anything you experience to another person without direct access to their mind, which we never gain. Defining things is a subset of communication, and just as well it is impossible to fully define anything that involves experience, which is everything.
So you are reiterating the idea of organising concepts into graphs. You can do that, but note that any such graph:
1) is a lossy map/model, possibly useful (e.g., for communicating something to humans or providing instructions to an automated system) but always wrong with infinite maps possible to describe the same reality from different angles;
2) does not acquire meaning just because you made it a graph. Symbols acquire meanings in the mind of an experiencing self, and the meaning they acquire depends on recipient’s prior experience and does not map 1:1 to whatever meaning there was in the mind of the sender.
You can feel that I am using a specific narrow definition of “meaning” but I am doing that to communicate a point.
It reads as genuine to me. How can you have an account that old and not be at least passingly familiar with the person you're replying to here?