The "Symboliad"

by Casian STEFAN (Essentia Mundi AI Research Lab. - Sibiu, written between 15-20.July.2024.
A slightly revised version and online 25.Aug.2024.,10.Sep.2024.

A quick grasp of "Symboliad" at ABBILDUNG (Symbol/Image) website here. 

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

Abstract
The Sphere with that possible cones of perspectives. With an assumption that action, drive, behavior is not caused by neurons, but by the Symbols' web.
The article represents a first glimpse of it from the philosophical and practical view.
With the remark that the details are to be found also in other articles, and traces in "Denkbewegung" through the Lab's articles.

Introduction
The "Symboliad" concept & philosophical framework comes a long way actually. A philosophical framework traceable in a "Denkbewegung" of the last 25+ years of the author.
It is always the temptation to give the world a meaning and to try accede to higher levels from which one can unify it all, beautifully in a round, nice conceptual work. In Wittgensteinian terms, this means one seems preoccupied for long, in some certain metaphysical sense, and always searching to create a "Tractatus" of some sort. Is this endeavor always a pitfall?
Every now and then people of "sciences" tried. And maybe succeeded, but I am not sure who can decide that, in the end. Also do those higher theories have something tangible attached to them? Do they actually help in a more concrete way? That is why I think the best way to start is to have a world view and from that, start with setting the scene, from philosophy, for a formal epistemic justification stance if possible, to a framework like this one, through which in turn, see what can be explained, what can be of use.

Groundless grounds aware
"Groundless grounds" are there, some healthy way to look at it, is that if you zoom, and go beyond certain scales, new possible layers are to be deciphered and new ontological domains to be foreseen. In a way one should wear some proper glasses, and to not look too far either.
Seems like most of the time there is a framing problem. Both in the ontological and epistemological domains, that are overlapping also from the point of the zooming to things - an uncovering of layers which we thing have a representational or functional meaning - but we may ultimately just ascribe it being as such.
Also, on a broader sense, to "know" something is to be committed to the rules and standards of a particular linguistic and social milieu.
These commitments are not optional, they are the very conditions that make knowledge and understanding possible. Without such commitments, language and meaning would break down, and we would lose the ability to navigate the world coherently.
For the very same reason, I extended the view to the Symbol, that arch artifact, open, shared (identified, maybe at some point, poorly and abstractly as a word) like in a social milieu, is committed in turn to other Symbols (some even enacted by the interactions between them) and in turn we are committed to them.
The Zeitgeist is made of a certain set of Symbols, and in this very one, and the next,...,there are various conventional "truths" emerged from the commitment, an agreement that may broke too by the next generations.

The idea
In a broadest coupling sense, I see the proper frame of reference to the human layer of existence as the "Symboliad." The web of interactions of the Symbols. They come from the observers biased perspective.
"The World is my World" (L.W.) is now at its most powerful expression. "The full story of the Universe is the (observers) Symboliad. For that, the essential brick, is the Symbol, the irreducible entity (because it is intrinsically "believed" in, yet open, shared, "externsively" defined - no bounds dynamics) with which we operate, and we are operated with.
Then it is simpler (complexity can be seen ultimately as an illusion too) to start with the position of the observer and see what kind of "floating alive entity" it creates." (from the discussion Ruliad vs. Symboliad.)

The AI field
When looking at the domain of AI, of the "thinking machines", it also seems that much of the fundamental researchers are to be inevitably confronted with the same metaphysical questions as I did (what is life, what is mind, what is language, logic, etc) and always on a quest to attain a formalization and encapsulation - mostly within the same system, whereas there always seem to be an incomprehensible openness to any formalization. A mechanistic approach from one representation means to other, that in turn crosses (ontological) domains and looses details and representational power (from that on, here we have at least a glimpse into the illusion of a causal nexus I am referring to, that by the very loose of details, the illusion gains power.) Eg. one goes from a "gut feeling" to a first order formalization (which in turn has its limiting ways, and cognitively and socially induced biases, is offering different perspectives) like language, to the physical, mathematical one.

So also in the AI case, another means of approaching the construction of it should be advanced, and if one of the objectives for an AI system, to be of the kind of "human-like intelligence", capable, explainable, I see it should be able to have at the base of its reference frame, the "Symboliad" itself.

Symbols Framework
Ok, what is this, yet another one all-encompassing concept that it is trying to provide a framework for AI, to the problem of "if machines can think".
Within the Symboliad itself, from my perspective, the Symbols Framework takes a certain frame of reference, framing it within an Observer, seeing the generative layers, has third person views, would train a non-egological eye, a connectionist view, "all is one," and an ecological strong bound-ness. It would account for answering questions of that metaphysical nature, of how our world works, what intelligence and consciousness are.
 
This sounds like a very strong anti-Wittgensteinian theory making view. Through any endeavor of such nature, one can't make a theory, less an all encompassing one. The map should be the territory otherwise our causal urge is always in the way to actually encompass the all. But it is just a Framework to test the World View. Seen as a model, it is just a perspective, in the "Symboliad."

The elements
For me personally, I am thinking that the "Symboliad" would be one of the representations that would glue the missing link between a "Tractatus" definite essentialist view and a theory-free, constructivist view of the "Philosophical Investigations."

a) It has an internalist view, because to the World View, I always attach the Biased Observer. 

b) Taking a frame of reference through the Observer's bias. The moment we utter, we cut, we abstractify. And in that moment, we enter another generative domain. And the platform being us. We play further up, in that frame.

c) Symbols: although they can be sensed, they are not, for now, assumed as definable. In a way like the minimal constituent of matter - that which is nothing? - in the same way the Symbol is there, yet it is not if not enacted somehow (a multitude of them).

d) Symbols grasp: we have to acknowledged them and then try see their power: we self-domesticate with Symbols. A therapeutic view upon ourselves.

e) The basin is important. It is bootstrapping a Symbol and the "Symboliad." Basin at its core is "mortal" a "life matter". And it is also informed of senses and of other Symbols. While it is mortal, a part of this interaction can seem like immoral (ideas, etc). But there is another generative layer to be sensed, an assumed more energy spiking, the causal and more powerful and conscious side of the "Symboliad."

f) From that, a non-dualist view. Matter/energy as one, at work. 

g) the web, the interactions of the Symbols forms the "Symboliad." There are then new ensembles forming, but what matters, it is somehow, the Symbol is accounted for an irreducibility (because the Observer "believes" in it, not because it lies within an ontology or has a causal nexus.)

h) third-man perspectives, this interaction creates different self-driving mechanisms, after we as social animals function in a society - and taking in account invisible entities, ever watching gods, etc.

i) as we know now what drives us, what makes us work, in the virtue of Symbols, one has to self-domesticate with the setup of them. With this new perspective, once can then take a new slice in the Symboliad and come with new ways.

j) ... [to come]: formalization ideas, pitfall, language view, ontological setups, cones, abstractions, (eg. sets of all sets, the void set, that it is not void, my old "friend" the void set), what the block is.

Discussion
From the physical substrate to the ideological, intrinsic emergent mechanics - in a way that their shared web enacts the drives of the "forms of life" in a societal "bathing" environment. That "other" system that accounts for what he have in the brain.

The minimal (believed) block accounts in turn for a reference frame in us, as humans, we are attuned to a certain frame. The substrate of Symbols is part of us, it stays at our disposal. Another scenario, that would help us transcend, would be a structuralist view in mathematics (representational,) and some ideas from Quantum Computing and AI. But then in my limited view, what would be the map-territory bounds? If the answer is "42", or "§" what this does represent, are we attuned to see it?

Maybe still our immediate hope is the Symbols within our Framework because they open up a potentially new language to be better grasping at things. A shared, open cohesiveness, floating entity that in turn is floating as a web above the "form of life", and creating it. We have to self-domesticate with this way of thinking.

It is possible to define a Symbol? Is its structure a kind of essentialist minimum, taking the proper frame of reference of the EM's Worldview, relative to that? What is his structural physical basin and what his weakest coupling and how it is to be elevated, in the conceptual domain?
From the structural end (the encoding of Symbols at the neuronal level) to the Sphere of these shared Symbols in which we navigate and also shape a societal milieu. 
A Hegelian view, in which the un-foldment of an aligned view, will uphold to a minimal ideology.
In order for an AI system, that is to be aligned (human-like (artificial) intelligence), to be of use, his Environment is to be of Symbols acknowledgement and domestication. A minimal Ontology of those, that would account, in a Lacanian way, for an independent Drive.

"What would sustain such a Symbols basin? Recent development in neuro[3] has sparked in me a further impulse in me to write more about the Symbols Framework, while this physicalism view in the research, would give a supporting view of the framework. In this example, the word Sun/Son (same acoustics/EN speakers) has shown that the Neuronal substrate was firing on different areas for the same sound, because the sound was uttered in a different context. There are indeed two Symbols at play here." (citation from the Basin article.)

The underline that the mere "san" uttering is the word transformed from sound. But that there is a second abstraction right to it, that of the Symbol representation which is in another language.

A language that lies seems hidden from us, we use it all the time, yet not enough bringed-up to more self-attention. The use in everyday life was just like a shadow, while paying attention to the Symbols (the extension that the Words only slightly exposes - and misses most of the time) would allow us to:

0.We delve into the self, into that scaffolding about the world we posses, and with this own reductionist framework we try see from there. The perpetual biased self. The self is flooded with Symbols. We imagine others minds. We compose our imagined Symbols to the Symbols of the other. It is a realization of us through the others.

1. Better frame others views, and their frames of references. A language that would mediate a better understanding. Child begin filling the forming basin of the Symbols.

2. A way that would allow us to speak of other's intelligence (of systems like AIs) in more graspable terms, and ascribe their "consciousness" through the Symbols they would process. Through our Symbols system.

3. This new self-training to view in Symbols would allow us to access, grasp, process, implement new ways, like a basic ontology that would constitute a substrate for building aligned AI systems natively. As well as take the power to domesticate ourselves with them, deliberately.

4. The abstract structure of the Symbols would have to be implemented as open. Also in a relative place within the frame of reference of our navigational space. (It does not mean that we are just in this space, rather that the current Symbolism is "holding us captive".)

5. That the feeling of "consciousness" and the drives are indeed a scaffolding through the Symbols framework, a web that is yet to be defined, but seemingly achievable if one has a practical use from that.

6. The framework accepts also that the "groundless grounds" are there but that also Symbols can be used to realize conventional truths, to start from there.

7. The derivation from this Symbols Framework standpoint is that Mathematics for example - is invented. But the invention is towards a causal nexus, that in turn is constructing a world to be headed to a reality. So while it is invented it also is discovered, in the sense that new Symbols (within a causal nexus) are to be enacted. When all the cones are exhausted, is the boundary achieved?

8. Mathematics is the language of a causal nexus of Symbols. There is hope that through its kind of invention/discovery, a divide and conquer towards new Symbols would structurally get us to new Symbols that we are not aware of. That they would tell us something about the systems/our system/ourselves/new level generative otherwise not possible to grasp. [to discuss further]

9. Symbols are defined in an "externsive" way. They can't be nailed down as words are. An open structure. They are conventionally accepted as shared, existing. They are multidimensional objects pertaining to meaning. They float as well as their connections. [to discuss only connections view]

10. The view to history is to be also updated, seeing through Symbols Framework, would reconcile our view through evolution. To imagine humans thousand of years ago, a few hundred years ago, a future. A society navigation through them, our power to model worlds, envision us in them. (eg. altering the Environment, have different kinds of human minds in a verticality, would allow us to have that very different minds.)

11. The struggle through the history of science eg. of monads (Leibnitz), of epistemological and ontological confusions, would also be addressed and incorporated in the Framework.

12. A view to theories of everything, as classes of Symbols, of classes of Demarcations. Eg. Computation realm, ruliad, maybe as a top of the mathematical demarcation of the classes of computational Symbols.

13. That the missing extension to Tractatus, was the missing link, to the later work, that of Symbols. Reconcile the two world views. And that in the later work I can argue, Wittgenstein was battling Symbols. No theory advances, yet, he was not naming it, maybe is time to see that there is another broader view at play. (See the bridging the Tractatus to PI article).

14. Through the Framework, another approach to define intelligence, a new way for making AIs.

15. A framework that would be also able to entail the "italian" gestures language. For that matter, able to setup the "bat perspective".

16. "I" entity, acknowledged as a scaffolding structure with Symbols, within Symboliad. "I" Symbol is subdued to "self." First persons subject and second person entity is subdued to the first person's subject Symbols. (In a Lacanian way.)

17. Crossing ontological domains as overlapping of Symbols is inevitable. A framework to better frame what kind of glasses to wear. How deep one should look and what is at the intersection of such crossings. Whether one should avail to change Symbols, to see through proper ones. (eg. Physics at very low scales may require such shifts.)

18. Explains different mental conditions like Autism, PTSD, like the false arcs of Symbols that mismatch body, environment or other Symbols (gaps.)
eg. How would laughter be explained through the Symbols Framework: a gap in the Symbols, in the interactions, a contradicting stance in which the mind on the automatic drive withing the very Symbols of the setup in which it is, would inevitably have to "say" something, yet, an utter-ation "haha" is the only response possible. [this stance of explaining laughter has far more implications, to discuss]

20. Explains why LLMs do exhibit a working for us reasoning capabilities. They just get chunkier pieces of Symbols and glue them. (Half of the story: we in turn try to complete the chunks, an anthropomorphizing cascade.)

21. A "language" at the top of semantics, pragmatics and compositionality. It is prior to that, it can account for a gluing medium for them. The neuro-physical basin allows the emulation of the Symbols. That immediate neuro-basin rises the structure of the Symbol. [to discuss vis-a-vis Chomsky and others views, a reconciliation maybe]

22. The Signifier is the Symbol of "material" form. The Signified as the Symbol's ideal form. At the top of the Signifier and the Signified, the Symbols precede them, in the sense that there is no separation - one can see what one have a slightest intuition for (a minimal description of a slightest functional loop.) From then on there is the interplay of the two but also of the conventional, shared, imagined, etc. Too, I can point you to learn new Symbols. (This can account for why some people who would never can grasp some Symbols in mathematics or musical prodigies for ex. - the structural basins may be less pronounced, they are missing connecting Symbols, they could not emerge naturally some Symbols, what in others may be present.)

23. The Umwelt is at the center of the "forms of life". The Symbols is the language of the Umwelt. (traced to Uexküll)

24. If I train a dog to do something new, does it develop a Symbol or an automation? (If one can recite a poem, it also cannot understand it at all - no Symbols.) Automata (intelligence flavor) vs. consciousness (symbols operator.)

25. On the account of Putnam's computational functionalism, Symbols basin, a materialization in a primarily scaffolding mechanism at the microscopic level of perception, can be seen that these descriptions of sensory loops can underline the enaction of the basin (the spark/start of the Symbol). Symbols Framework can act as the agglomerant of the computational-functional aspects of mentality, and its intentional character.

26. The semantic externalism as Putnam puts it: "the contents of a person's brain are not sufficient to determine the reference of terms they use, as one must also examine the causal history that led to this individual acquiring the term" accounts for the "externsive" properties of the Symbols.

27. The causal power is dictated by the relations between the Symbols. At the emergence layer that is attained once a web of Symbols is emerging. This is the frame of reference suited to our entities. Below that level one should adopt a different ontology (that would not bias the "measurements". And even more below, a totally different ontology (if ever to be able to be visualized - like fluid-fractals-waves-oscillation within a very limited epistemological frame.)
There are generative layers to pay attention to. (Overlap in ontologies to analogy.)

[to discuss: How is the search for causality arises? Sleep meaning? Animals sleep, do no sleep - can filter to causality/work on automatic pilot. Do not search for causality, it is a pitfall of the Observer. The patters, the recursivity, the fractals.]

28. Above that level of higher and higher Symbols (the generative layers on top of each other, yet anchored) some hope through mathematics, physics (a structuralist scaffolding, to new generative layer eg. and fill some yet not found and combined Symbols.) (A return to map-territory.)

29. The web accounts for simulating scenarios. Accounts for further drive the detour, model new Environments. (See article with Detour.)

30. From life sciences, humanities to real sciences spectrum. What it is from Symbols Framework view? Very important, we can trace ideologies among many organizational waves.

31. Symbols as that common constructs that allow us to parse a "reality." Phenomenology and symbols? What is the relation? A work of disentangling the imagined by others "generative passages", computational phenomenology, shared phenomenology, intersubjectivity, scripts, up to the quirks that language brings: what are synonyms, polysemous, etc.

32. Metaphorically: the Symbols float on the director-less set of a movie. The act self-directs. There should be no scripts. Only some functional priors, properties (class instances.) What cells do in this kind of no-scenario? Their drive, is their Symboliad?

33. Function of the executive load in the automatic semantic memory retrieval mode mostly. I am me, that does not require a controlled retrieval. Symbols are on an automatic load mode that drives us. I am assuming already, we are rarely and in tip of some cones, taking action (aware, awake.)
[A discussion if we are awake at all!]

34. Objectivity is conventional. Differences in Symbols. But nothing to grasp to see: "Externsive" definition of the bubble. (Intended to domesticate in the Symbols Framework, one can invent new words...they can point to the same Symbol, or maybe not. An exercise to do often.)

35. Matter and information. Information is the Symbols. Although information is not what we are accustomed to. More like imprints, a sensation - as the brain does.

36. The territory is the web of Symbols possibility. The map is the attention to the Symbols. The measurement is the boundary of the attention. From here where these will be one? When all cones are exhausted?

37. There is a therapeutic view in the possibility in thinking in Symbols Framework views. It is like a formalization of the training you with certain Symbols. Like a meditation practice. Attain to the Symbol, that encompasses a whole. All is one, etc.

38. The shifting perspective, "duck/rabbit" or cube up/down: what do you see? This is a shift through the Symbol. A grasp to its multidimensional structure (which is not structured, but a constant game with other related) but also at the language deficiencies. eg. "her" can point to different Symbols on each party involved in the shared discussion. (One can make jokes immediately on that position of confusion inducing.) The "oracle" is us.

39. The process of advancing in the Symboliad, the construction of the map, goes by growing Symbols and connections, and in that process the causal urge, a narrowing of the aperture, towards a cone, is self driving us.

40. Tracing back on actual state of the Symbols. Symbols created by self, the container that is allowing it. The composition of Symbols, the infusion from other ones. Setting a perspective, as we look (look as in understanding at the slightest to what we look.)

41. From interpersonal to the the west/east conflict is a Symbols conflict, etc.

42. Qualia: feeling of self, we construct with Symbols, same with thinking that we think. Pain behavior we cast. Pain is not there. Color is there. Pain in arm, but arm is not me! We have to see the Symbol of us, as a whole to solve the confusion about pain. Color is of shared meaning, we agree that it is so. (A hint at the existence of the Symbol as concept itself.)

43. Fractals are the self-referentiality of Symbols. The paths from seed to the tree. The causal force of feed forward? From the fractal pattern we get the causal emergence within the Symbols framework. That underlying vibration of Essentia Mundi. But it seem a fractal that cannot be seen in reverse. [the causal chain of events is not traceable in reverse.]

44. What is beyond the Symbols? To take a position outside. We must change the Symbols, but then also the conceptual space, morphogenetic space, neuro-space, the basin too? Where is the seed? Where is the end of this spectrum, beyond the tree? Accede to the next generative layer. But its very hard to see what is beneath.

45. If there is a way to change the way you are contoured by which Symbols. By the highest form of consciousness: a kind of de-contextualization of everything and the realization of the existence of the Symbols and their dynamic nature.

46. The flavors of "Symboliad". There is a discussion about the World blocks an attempt to look beyond. That is to be left aside - we take our frame of reference as central. Self made World models, what generative layers within, different kinds - animals, plants.

47. Are, an active inference framework, LLM, and in general ML algorithms trying to get to the "consciousness" levels (of our kind), but without the Symbols arcs? There are levels of Symbols, that allow to emerge an automatic drive to the allostatic equilibrium. This layer is only to be realized with the emergence between the interaction and web of these layers (there are attempt to construct the arcs that communicate, and results are promising.)

48. There may be "consciousness" frameworks that try go "vollgas durch Gas" by not acknowledging the groundless grounds to reality of the results, or their slice in the Symboliad is not taken from top. 

49. Culture is a slice of Symbols within a perspective which drives a population. Ranges from self (always not in isolation, I argue), minimal group (eg. family) to governments.

50. The actual content of the Symbol: can have the same as one that a LLM has. It only has to give it a next level connected meaning.

51. Language independent basin.

52. The Chinese Room, Plato's cave to discuss.

53. Theater of mind. Alignment, too narrow, too wide while chatting. This would go to the "language of thought" or "mentalese" - there is a temptation here, but as developed, this seems to be a proto-language, that has no semantics one can get a grasp at. It forms as a "criss-cross on a thread" - no traceability.

54. Animal sounds, utter, squirrels sounds while eating. Language not required for consciousness? Also to be aware, language not needed? Communication can be silent.

55. We are not shaped to see beyond. To navigate. There is a fact, that we change the Environment. We operate within the same structure to different Symbols facets. We alter the level of the changed Environment we operate in. Does the new Environment and new combination of Symbols change, in turn, the basic structure of the Basin's physicalist part? Can we ever escape a base vibration (the water drop) so we become a different shape? (One of our working assumption.)

56. Symbols interactions enacts a causal nexus (that would contain in turn Symbols of truth, axioms, incompleteness, paradoxes, rules of the game, ontologies, formalizations, math) when an agent is also part of the Symboliad cone. Is math the tip of the cone? The Symbol transcends the truth, it can be the cause, the moment we subdue it to some framing and axioms. (Incompleteness in the sense, I cannot define it, then say, let's prove it: that is the incompleteness fallacy.)

57. Functionalism and computationalism. Can one assume all Symbols are computational (arch as hypervectors, etc). A combination out of an "evident" causal relation. Functionalism, it speaks already of an order, which is observer dependent and assumes a human phenomenology. One can have a mind that is not organized in some causal way. It means otherwise that it adopted a cone, thus aligned to human commitments already. Tightened to another human Observer.

58. Mortal computation: seems that the platform is not necessarily a conditional substrata, the supervenience is at some point reduced. If the substrata is producing some kind of very restricted Symbols, that are not open, then that substrata can't be good for a complex "form of life" to emerge. It should attain a level of enough generativity. But at a certain lower scale of requirements it can be. (A purpose.) Separation of scales is a supporting argument for our framework. There are architectures in the wild, that looks promising and supports that idea already.

59. Properties of Electromagnetic Fields, physical basis for conscious states - that could mean the Basin is to this kind of connection. But we posit that Environment is creating an imprint in the fields. And from here a certain physicality. But then again a matter of scales and their emergent properties. Like a fractal zooming analogy. In the most reductionist way: these structures of the Basin will instantiate Symbols representations and from that the whole of the Symboliad.

60. To further the discussions to (a pool of ideas for future use):
- cognitive computing, active inference (scale-free level too low but basic emergence - which would have to be translated bridged into the Symbols Framework), modeling, not in isolation, culture, perception of reality, bias being human, observation, ontology is objective (of Symbols how would that be?).
- ontology as essentialism. Not constructivism. Neo-materialism. To predict from them as we act in a certain way.
- predictive processing. Ecological theory. Map across scales, to get emergent feature. History of system to see how it would emerge features. Attractor dynamics. Shared space but perceive some items differently.
- from cells to AI - how is that fitting? Sentient behavior, cognition. Multi-dim. opening of the structure. Dichotomy of the map and territory. No duality, but a perspective, frame of reference, attention to some Symbols.
- neo-materialism - how things interact. Image there is the trajectory. Because the Symbols may be not a thing.  Constrains of the trajectories. Historicity shaped the cognitive trajectory. A system 3, the other.
- change is shift in ideology. Awareness, consciousness, attention, cognition, sentience, intelligence, perception, qualia, panpsychism. Recursiveness, fractals.
- alive on automated Symbols, is intelligence. On conscience and awareness means to be able to see through Symbols. Life is not "to want," it is on automatically movement from the Environemnt and a lower class of implicit Symbols. The unconscious driver.
- structural learning. Bayesian model selection. New state. Scales of the Symbols. People to change their trajectories (eg. poor escape.)
- the representational data is created from within the Symbols and their "Symboliad" and the cones. So at one point, we act on what the data represents not on what the data is representing. A map-territory problem, even leading to a energy minimization problem, in the end.

Some concluding thoughts
Covering that basin would intuitively give one a grasp of this new "language." Once grasped, one can`t really go back: because consciously thinking in Symbols, in those arch terms, one would get a larger basin himself for understanding, for acceptance, for assessing ones motifs better, to ascribe new qualities, to be aware of some cultures, etc.

When someone says:
"- This is a very pleasant pineapple."
One sees its "internsive" view for pineapple. But at the same time a hunch towards the "shared" and the others' view. What is your Symbol look like for the "pleasant"? Then one can visualize the Symbol of the meaning web of the word. And one can create an "internsive" perspective of the Symbol, extracting (while "pleasant" itself as a whole, it is a Symbol in all its dimensions, even in some cultures may be still very open to interpretation/undefined, "externsively" apprehended, shared) that gets ascribed to the ask-er's identity. Thinking, well, pleasant like in sweet, then we can answer accordingly with the chosen Symbol's perspective of meaning attached:
"- Yes, this is a sweet/round/yellow/light/clean/juicy/tall/big/small/tasty/ripe pineapple."

It may be round or not, at the very least, a formal structure of a Symbols should be attempted to be developed. As in anticipating that an attention to an ensemble of Symbols from the Symboliad is what one need in order to create a useful thing, to frame itself better, to frame situations, asses loads of the Symbols in any situation or intellectual setup.

Well this load in itself does not entail only words, not even "language of thought" but an intrinsic, apriori load that goes through location, significance of location, etc. an Environment in general.

_____________________________________
Exploration by C. Stefan, 15.-20.Jul.2024 [about]
Last update: 25.Aug.2024 (versions: *) [versions]
"Essentia Mundi" AI Research Lab. [home]
Copyright © 2024 AI.EssentiaMundi.com, all rights reserved.
_
References: 
To be added.