Communication and its effects on thought....

[KC]

All forms of communication that have have already been used somehow put a structure - a definite meaning - to a thought. When you talk to someone it is you trying to communicate your thought to them. Now, since every language is finite, and since every word is finite, doesn't the communication of a thought change the meaning of what the thought really was?

I'm having trouble thinking of how to explain this (haha a perfect example of what I'm trying to say!). I've thought about this a lot. Are thoughts finite in the sense that they can be explained and have the thought communicated 100% accurately EVER? Are seperate thoughts connected to one another? If you wanted to read someone's mind, would you be able to read their thoughts? Or would you have to read their whole consciousness as a whole to see what they're thinking?

[*Hippie*]

I don't think a thought could ever 100% be expressed to another person, but the connection between people who have a close spiritual or emotional bond would make it easier.

[Clarksist]

The brain has patterns, and if two people from similar walks of life started talking about a similar thought, the connection is close enough to 100% for there to be no discrepancy.

I agree that no thought can be 100% communicated. But the beauty of knowing extensive language is closing in on that number.

[rage master]

i feel that people dont comunicate

[rage master]

Communication is fake because every one will have there own way of Interpreting some thing and there own way of expressing it and unless every one starts thinking in the same exact way then people will always have different out looks

['Discourse Unlimited']

All forms of communication that have have already been used somehow put a structure - a definite meaning - to a thought. When you talk to someone it is you trying to communicate your thought to them. Now, since every language is finite, and since every word is finite, doesn't the communication of a thought change the meaning of what the thought really was?


I suppose the bigger question is: "What is the nature of the link between words and reality?" Or, perhaps, "Does such a link even exist?" The development of 'linguistic relativism', in this sense, is intriguing. This (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2.html) is a useful analysis.

I always thought it would be interesting to isolate several "subjects", give them materials with which to draw, and then tell them to depict "fire", "water", or anything else... I think the results would vary wildly. Or perhaps you could try and get people to describe what "xx" is, without using the word itself (or derivations of it). Fascinating stuff!

Also consider "Newspeak" in George Orwell's '1984':
Wiki's definition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)
An excerpt from the book. (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-prin.html)

:)