Have you ever wondered why it can be so difficult to communicate, particularly when discussing more esoteric concepts such as those of philosophy, psychology, or religion? The answer, of course, lies in the nature of information and the way we manage it.
According to the physicalist aspect of cognitive physicalist philosophy, information is physical in nature. We have an evolved ability to recognise and name things by virtue of their recurrence. I will use the example of a snake in the explanation that follows.
The structure and behaviour of physical things is “information at source”. So, the physical manifestation of the snake is also information at source.
We translate information at source into an idea. Thus, the idea of a snake may be a mental image residing in memory. To enable us to communicate, we also translate that idea into a word. In this case, the word is “snake”.
Thus, the physical manifestation of the snake, the idea of the snake, and the word “snake” are all strongly associated with one another. Furthermore, because we are all able to observe the physical manifestation of a snake in its entirety, this provides us all with a common anchor to reality. So, we also share a common idea of a snake and a common understanding of the meaning of the word “snake”. When we speak the word “snake” this invokes the same idea in the listener as the idea that generated the word for the speaker.
Although everything is physical, not everything can be observed in its entirety. A more abstract concept such as justice, for example, comprises very many just acts and each person can only observe a few of them. Different people will of course observe different examples, and thus, form different ideas of justice. There is no common anchor to physical reality, and so, the word will invoke different ideas in different people.
We are also able to form ideas that may not have a physical equivalent. For example, Atlantis is a mythical city and, although we can create this idea, it has no equivalent in the physical world. We do, of course, speculate on far more complex ideas than Atlantis and give them names. In such circumstances, we may not even have examples to observe, and so, the likelihood of the speaker and the listener sharing a common idea for the word is even less.
To overcome this problem, we often attempt to define the idea associated with the word. However, because our ideas differ, we frequently encounter differences of opinion over the definition. For more esoteric concepts, even the words we use to define the idea may have their own differences associated with them. So, agreeing a common idea for a word that describes something abstract or something that does not really exist can be fraught with difficulty.
To complicate matters yet further, the ideas associated with words can alter with time. A form of evolution takes place in which different definitions gain greater acceptance or expire. So, the meaning of a word to a member of one generation can frequently differ to that of another. The physical equivalent of a word can also alter with time, culture, and geography. For example, the Western ideas and practices associated with the word “justice” today are different from those of the Middle Ages and parts of the Middle East.
We should accept that communication can be very difficult and needs considerable effort when we are discussing more esoteric ideas. We often, for example, encounter people using the same word for different ideas, or different words for the same idea.
The best we can do to overcome these difficulties is use plain language wherever possible, both to express our ideas and, where necessary, to define a word. It is sensible to use dictionary definitions because these will be the most commonly used. However, British and American English dictionary definitions often differ. So, it is also sensible, when writing, to define any word that is not in common use and, if the word has not been used for a while, to repeat the definition, as a reminder for the reader.
Rational-Understanding.com 