A Symbol's arc: from an informed Basin to Utterance. Naturalizing intentionality: Symbols Omniload.

by Casian STEFAN, Principal Researcher at Essentia Mundi AI Lab. Contact: ai-AT-essentiamundi.com / ai.essentiamundi.com
8-11.Sep. 2024.

"...family resemblances; for the various resemblances between members of a family … overlap and criss-cross in the same way…’games’ form a family." L.Wittgenstein

Further a quick grasp of Symbols Framework at ABBILDUNG (Symbol/Image) website here.

Academia link to article here.
Please consider citation with link, if you derive work. Or contact me for collaboration. Thank you!

Abstract

A discussion: We have an imprint, very biased, in which we tend to see "hard" objects and "soft" very different, conceptually, let alone, the ones that are visible and ones that not - a feature of us, imprinted from a more immediate external environment areal, in which one has bigger contoured Symbols that are for immediate needs to help in differentiate what is good (eg. to walk on, consume, etc.) or bad for us. We tend to make these drastic separations then use them in a limiting context, a bias towards isolation. There is work to be done to see what is more at play in the realm of thought because it should not be always a "hard" rather it can be soft, invisible and big.

As a unifying framework, the Symbols Framework, is taking in account a broad, yet plausible, arc that a Symbol, as we defined it, would necessarily not to be taken as an isolated entity. Going down on a chain of events (not a causal precision in account), here follows the broadest coupling I can, for now, imagine. I would go with an arc from an environmental account, an anchoring in senses, to the enaction of some representations sparks, to inner monologues as in children surfacing, to utterances as words. The words although "hard" in imprinting, the underpinning mechanism may be soft but very harder in the potentiality. Even though not yet to a chance to be uttered. From that view, we should accept there is a game to achieve a consensus to a word, not rules that converge to a consensus.

The not-in-isolation sense of the arch.

From the cell's, in my view, not a dual interpretation of its function, where compounds and energy (in broad sense) are capable to extend at least some form of abstraction, exactly due to the nature of the (bio/magnetic/electricity etc.) energy it carries, we can borrow a simple model. A model that would form "life matter". A justice done against the dualism.

Mind wandering, inner monologue. Clap of hands, with fingers.

I can visualize it in this way: as any utterance that is made either by animals or humans, it looks like it is produced by a closure action, from the bottom thick side to the thinner, like a clap but within an angle - I still name it: the tip of a cone. That as it is built, it's also gradually closing the gap. Well, the fingers are the family resemblance items. There seem to feasible that two claps will ever be the same, yet the very cone it is closed, may say same word, yet we can't see how it has arrived at a conclusion (its dependent of a language used, which comes later in the cones.)

The family resemblance and criss-crossing is what we bring to the table when we go through the mind wandering, or inner monologue which seem like "wander" indeed - the claps are not really closing, and quite random, nothing uniform as the proper language we employ later. This inner monologue, as surfaces in utterances and words, chunk of ideas, a gradual reinforcement of the Symbols they carry is to be seen in babies mostly.

The construction of it, the very meaning of it, it is not complete in a semantically tractable sense.
At this level, looking like a level of generativity, where on the thread of a thought there is a game at play, a pull-push, criss-cross and overlap, that arrives as a concretized form through this "chaoti-fractal" pattern synthesis.

There is a strange fractal resemblance across the axis, from cell, multicell to thoughts.

"...the strength of the thread does not reside in the fact that some one fibre runs through its whole length, but in the overlapping of many fibres." (L.W.)

Re-framing "language of thought" as Symbols Omniload

Following the same line of thought, at another level, I would extend this view to the Symbols load-ness within a context, be it mental or ambient - the interpolation with other Symbols, through the contribution of adjacent "family" ones with further injection from other parties, entities we interact - this would be the setup through which they would reach a consensus. The Symbols Omniload.
Most probably, in a more natural way (also a fractal view - as what evolution hints) a concurrent one depending on a priorities scale through the Symbols involved. But, a sudden sensation stimulus, or random burst (duck/rabbit illusions, at action), a memory, it can induce a different thought, and is that has already a Symbol in the parties, it will overcome the ones that were just about to burst.

A semantic change that may occur in an instant - and this would happen also through the evolution, through the cultural changes, through the changes in the Symboliad.

There are some interpretations to that inner linguistic layer and thought layers are seen as different. In an immediate view of that next layer, of thought, I argue that if there is not a remarkable difference from the linguistic one, then it is language (whispered in thought) or if a difference, then it is that "inner monologue" or "language of thought" or "mentalese" as in [1]. But the presence of such a view, despite it bringing up a web of logical, semantic connections, that ultimately the word is carrying as hidden substrate, it can still be seen just as a quasi rule-based structured form[2]. Maybe the ambiguity comes in conflict with the definition of language which should carry its Zeitgeist mark - thus it is important but it is also contextual. Most modern languages are rule-based approaches (it was a gradual process, that makes the language a more and more contextual pressing apparatus.) This "inner monologue" or "mentalese" is this load of Symbols: an Omniload. That they have a language representation maybe, yet this Omniload is not a direct causal, structural, accurate (eg. even one should ask himself, "what religion may have the other," then we can see a different Symbols Omniload. The context of converging to a meaning between the two is through a half-meaning by the load, half-meaning by the game they engage in (including body, language, other sensing, and preconceptions.)

Each participant in the conversation brings their own Symbols Omniload, and through means of communication, they attempt to create a shared space where Symbols can further be aligned.

Whereas between thoughts there is way more weaker necessity of coupling, as the logical necessity, and this is a kind of "games form a family"(L.W.) and indeed should not be contained, to an "in isolation" contextual account because there are dynamics of play that entail openness, shareness and "externsiveness." Thought representations account for many factors and the mechanics are differentiable eg. if they are semantically bounded, how would then this logical necessity be explained in eg. creative thinking? When one is able to connect disparate representations and combine in new ways? When one from a sensory alteration derives new insights? Thus, how would one acquire new representations?

The representational account can still be rescued without that semantic necessity: the very one that it is engaging the connection of representations to objects in the world, and viewing it by the existence of a logical, semantic, linguistic structure that accounts for the meaningful composition from the representations (the picture theory) and that it is really the Tractarian view and should be treated as such, aka. not the whole story, just a particular position.
Further on, I would argue that the logical necessity in turn is not to be dismissed, but it happens far later, as in the setup of the Symbols Framework: at some reduction cones.

The deeper level

On the account of cellular abilities of theirs very slights sparks of representational means I can see an evolutionary dimension too. "Life matter" stays informed in the Environment and may form a colony, of cells, that in time decide to make bigger ensembles, to what we may call "bodies" (still hardly separated from an anthropomorphizing effect.) The next layer would be of the complexification in the processing of that representational means. A growth in physical size through the cell colonies would entail more wide perception potential. But at the same time, when a cell dies, it leaves a trace so that it will be better represented against the environment by the new ones. One can see again a fractal view, that flows.

From this position the synergistic assemblage that is the body of an entity, captures an even more varied sensory areal, imprinted in turn always from an Environmental (be it external physical, or external, socially), there is the potential of even a more sophisticated web. They are the most basic functional arcs that already have a primitive premise for interpretation in relation with the wider and vertical capture ways.

They would entail means of emotional states (a loop implied,) primitive ones, that would account for survival means. As the arc is growing, the representation takes form, the interactions of them are to enact a new level of implicit "thought", which in turn is reinforced through feedback, through game-ness with other entities that have a precise underlying base as Environment and their imprinting through their Symboliad, adjusted, fit new generation.
The arc is at this stage very open, shared and in connection with others and "awaits" in turn a closure. An imprint, reinforced (in the same sense as the ant's left traces is a minimally sufficient condition of reinforcement, for the existence of the colony) that it is growing a relevancy. A relevancy build in an "externsive" way.

The essence of concepts.

So up to the utterance (eg. the sounds made by the starving animal, while eating) we have an interaction of representations that would reflect a holistic state. The formation is (eg. sounds of discomfort nature induced by the necessity of eating,) are representing an alignment in which the representation is there, has an open idealized form, yet not concluded by the real, subduing it to it.

Akin that, the drive - as in humans to be seen at this stage: for a "progress" is to be found in the differential between the enacted Symbols through their and their real-world mapping. When a mental Symbol lacks alignment with reality - essentially, when there's a problem - humans are compelled to create a solution.

From the paleo-linguistic perspective, "proto-thought" for driving human actions, it’s plausible that these representations were not governed by what we now call logical or grammatical structures (later), it can be indeed that the advancement of language has an imprinting movement that consolidated a logical thinking in turn. Anchored in the very differential movement itself, thus a constant nexus of search for meaning. Mostly through a causal nexus reduced to an illusory cause of events from that necessity to fill in the placeholders. Placeholders in the "form" of the Environment.

Early humans (also with a parallel to animals - are just another forms or built "bodies", themselves not an end of the story, still adjusting throgh the exact mechanisms presented here) relied on more instinctual, sensory, or imagistic forms of representation, which could have been shaped by immediate experiences, emotions, and the environmental ambient. But this would not entail a significant Detour in order to move their Symboliad to take care of drastic imprinting marks.
 
In our case is just as such, but the Environment changed all the time, significantly. And with it the Symboliad is in another dynamics moving.

Early human drives were guided by more intuitive or associative links rather than the semantics in the sense of language. In this sense, the logic of representation would have been fluid, dynamic, and directly tied to survival needs and environmental interaction, unlike the more deliberate and structured processes seen in modern humans who think and act within intricacies of language. In this setup language itself is a later tool that shaped and refined these drives into more cohesive forms. As tip of some cones. And in this finer mechanism towards language, a scaffolding at play enacted the "I", soul, etc.

The games.

To the essence of how that mechanics works, we now have a position in which we can also bridge a view from the perspective of Chomsky's innate structure and the language games acquisition of language as by Wittgenstein.
The big circle of imprinting is a game: the Environment endows the new with placeholders to be filled by the Symbols. The next game is, with this new slight Environment change imprinted, that the next generation will achieve their own conventional "truths" through their "language games" that in turn gets in the Symboliad.

Language-games shapes the meaning within a Zeitgeist, that can override an inherited imprinting. (This, as seen in former articles, comes from the splashes, when someone sacrifices itself to new insights, madness as it is called sometimes today.) 
This is transformed in turn, in currents of conventional truths, like ideologies, that in turn drives thus a chain of forms that end up driving us.
And another game is in between the Symbols in the Symboliad - their very interaction at the pre-cones it does not entail a structural direct connectionist account, rather an overlapping build from many steams. Not a comprehensible causal nexus. Not to be reverse engineered from the words (they are already irreducibilities of loose compressions.)
We operate with words and logic at the end of the cones in Symboliad, where we can make avail of an imprinted already causal nexus, reinforced by language yet, there is no causal implication from the deeper multitude of layers which are in turn better attuned and better anchored to the reality of an Environment. And at this end of the Symboliad, we are on a battle for describing it, by its implicit abstract means - which it endorses again a loose compression account. That would be the bathing medium of logic, math.
In this "game," the human mind plays with Symbols by attempting to subdue the environment, aligning idealized mental constructs with real-world conditions. Each time a Symbol is reinforced or enacted, the mind gains "points" in terms of cognitive reinforcement (combating the forgetting curve) and mastery (progressing along the learning curve).

The relevancy.

At each scale along the axis of the arc, the very existence within a level of relevancy, I argue, it is sufficient to account for many other features to the next level. Because of the multitudes of classes of inputs, the disparate and distribution of the levels of relevancy, exactly seen, as of a random categorical distribution between "families", that would begin enact the Symbol as a fiber, again "externsively" defined by the families.
It makes the first layer of a representational means and interactions of the more longer arc which goes from the anchoring in Environment to the end of it as an abstract, detached meaning as defined by the others. The bubble analogy, as defined by the adjacent ones. It does not exist in a sense.

Only at this stage a relevant web of Symbols self-orchestrate, on an innate account, all that it is, so that the entity, constructed exactly by these arcs by itself in itself, is also self-driving.

At this moment, the intention is not consciously productive - through the arc and through the imprinted "Ok" for a balance - yet always on an evolutionary path ensemble. The intention follows to primary function, the imprinting is dictating first. The imprinting is dictating what Symbols are to be, if we go on a Detour with the Environment, we have to "solve" new representations that arise in between, that in turn goes into the Symboliad, so that the next ones are to be fit. The naturalization thus, is always there and the drive is here to adjust us. That is why humans have an upper hand on another systems.

The Symboliad functions like a game board or map, with each Symbol representing a mirror move, or step in this larger game of meaning-making. It is like a digital twin. As we engage with the environment, Symbols are tested, challenged, and adapted. Failures lead to forgetting or decay, but successes reinforce the Symbol’s place in the web, strengthening its connections and relevance. And this represents the main drive force. A force that gets its power through the games (only later reinforced through semantic accuracy.)
The intentionality is here again naturalized, at this new level of more abstracted Symbols, the arcs extend further to create the cognitive abilities and directedness through the Symboliad cones.

Cultural, social, collective, Symboliad

Here we can see already a further expansion into the abstract (again on a fractal scale) but at the same time an entering on the domains of reductions by themselves enacting a "logical necessity" they carry it already ("logic take care of itself" L.W.)
The causal nexus goes with the detailed enaction of more and more Symbols' detailed connections, which when reaching the "inner monologue" they already enact proto-semantic webs.

The Symboliad, with all his Symbols arcs and the interactions is like an entity that is able to persist in Environment and that in turn it is shaping us by the next generations. Symboliad seem like the ultimate force of shaping, an energy that shapes us.[3]

The Symboliad - with its web of Symbol arcs and interconnections - can be seen as a self-sustaining and evolving force, which not only helps us understand and shape reality but also persists within the environment, influencing future generations. It becomes the energy that drives this ongoing cycle, shaping human thought and development over time - and containing in itself all the features, implicitly.)

In this light, the Symboliad is the central force in both the creation of meaning and the evolution of humanity’s relationship with the environment. It acts as the ultimate shaping force, connecting generations through the flow of Symbols and continually influencing how we perceive and interact with "reality."

Reality in itself is in there.

_____________________________________
Exploration by C. Stefan, 8.-11.Sep.2024 [about]
Last update: 11.Sep.2024 (versions: *) [versions]
"Essentia Mundi" AI Research Lab. [home]
Copyright © 2024 AI.EssentiaMundi.com, all rights reserved.
_
Notes:
[1] Jerry Fodor expresses the view that mental representations (thoughts) are structured in a systematic and compositional way, similar to how sentences are structured in a natural language.

[2] I am departing from that view, because, this suggests a mirroring, suggests a functional isomorphism of semantics between the two, whereas thought producing, I argue, do not follow precise rules as the language is endorsing. Rather thought grows along an arc, anchored always, not in isolation to the utterance of it - where it goes substantial transformations that would not entail a causal chain of events. Language of thought creates patterns for which language extracts, significant to the context, the words to express that pattern. Language and Language of Thought share a common situational, semantic logic, specific to a language, culture trait, but the former being a reduction to the later (loose compression). Thus a better term to work with: the load-ness of a Symbol: Omniload.

[3] The mechanism is thus on a cyclical dynamic pattern.
Placeholders: When we're born, we inherit Symbolic placeholders shaped by the existing environment.
Creation of New Symbols: Using these inherited Symbols and the web of meaning within the Symboliad, we create new Symbols by idealizing solutions to perceived problems (differentials between the idealized, emerged Symbol an immediate picture of reality). Imprinting on the Environment: These new Symbols are enacted, or imprinted, onto the environment as we solve problems or shape reality to match the idealized Symbol. Loop: This modified environment influences the next generation, filling their Symbolic placeholders with new contexts, and the process repeats.

References:
Philosophical Investigations - L.Wittgenstein.
C. Stefan - The Basin... [here].
C. Stefan - The Symboliad [here].
C. Stefan - The Language... [here].


New words:
Omniload: the Symbol's load-ness. Omniload of a Symbol is carrying a broad connection web. It is of cognitive and non-cognitive content.