Language Implications

A letter in this weeks Economist commented that we “need people who can make something of data and create information to guide decision-making”. This was enough to start a neural avalanche regarding the relation between data and information.

Data quantifies qualities along variable attributes correlating to an “event” or representing a set of “events”.

“Information is data that has been processed in such as way as to be meaningful,” [1,2] Also, “A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn” (‘statistical data’) [3]

Meaning signifies implication. “Implication is deductive inferred logical relation. ‘ if p then q: if p is true then q cannot be false'” [4] From quality information we can differentiate complex systems and model them with equations.

Data is fed into our neural system from our senses over time with systemic repetition and correlated via lingual adaptation into information. Information is then relayed off itself, forming concepts (information systems). Concepts are comprised of variable lingual attributes and exhibit meaningful complexity, described by the lingual structure from which they are formed.

Cognition is functionally different across various lingual data systems (concepts), which are then organized within a grammatical framework relative to other concepts. This is self-organization. Might a cohesive pattern emerge in neural functionality if we could see specific neuron systems forming new “concepts” via grammatic relations in order to more efficiently process increasingly complex ideas? Could “more meaningful information” imply a denser Set of data (information) to which the concept could potentially be applied? Our minds create a conscious whole greater than the sum of its parts by processing words into concepts and integrating different concepts to create experientially new thoughts, which are in turn described by new lingual formations and even entirely new words and ideas. This process simplifies the energetic input required to think a difficult thought by utilizing information, rather than data, and compounding meaningful representations of it across multiple meaningful systems. Aristotle’s Holism and Occam’s Razor together make a concept that I refer to as “complex energy density”.

Thoughts from the forefront of theoretical science,


Also explore..


  1. The problem with theortecial models of language as experimental testbeds for manipulation of the free will for personal and ‘human’ advancement:

    I don’t think you’ve considered the implications of actually modeling software after your/their paradigm. You’ll end up experimentally building an enemy robot who simply repeats enemy behavior and with whom no peace can be made ..and you will build that model in your own head and go through its paces against other people and yourself long before the software or hardware becomes operational in addition to functionally worshiping it because it has taken up so much of what you will be forced to call your effort and time.

    The way people actually think, the actual qualities of speech, are not happenstance. They keep the human race alive, even as they do indeed harm some more than others as an on-going product and it kills all flesh in the end. They also keep people in a very narrow corridor of understanding that is already good on a multitude of levels.

    You cannot assume we are all captive to evil simply because of any limitation and thus seek to expand for its own sake or simply follow all speech as if it were all the same and had no moral distinctions within it ( as if it were one large meta and as if there were only one speech in total reality as that meta and as if that speech were necessarily will-neutral because it also had the quality that you couldn’t speak it and call something into existence; — that lack of creating power, while providing a stable environment for creatures within it also has morally evil qualities from which men need rescue.. AND it is not the only speech in total reality) ..and start building machines or software to do stuff that strictly follow the rules of an idealized amoral, will-neutral speech as if it were wood or steel that you can just mold into any shape. Anything — they use you– to analyze is just going to repeat back to you a falsely idealized reality within those rules you used to build them.

    Yet you have as a default definition of language, in order to seem to have control over it ( in order to say you have a free will and that will operates within the extremely narrow confines of an environment in which it is maintained as such in perpetuity such that everything you encounter has to have as part of the definition of what it is that it is will-neutral as regards a ..unit human being..) that there is only one and you control it.

    You are looking for a way out of the evil effects of a non-creating speech ..within itself after having assumed it is the only one in all of reality.

    You assume, for a human being, a free will. That by implication would mean –if you had free will — that you were filtering out certain things that are being shown to you ( coming in through your eyes or ears or any of the five senses and through your soul and spirit..) and the things you did not think you were giving permission to effect you could not do so.

    Not only do you have no evidence that you can actually filter anything that way, but you have simply assumed that you can –as the result– of your former experimental models idealized as will-neutral items that look at other idealized will-neutral items and even further, implied that a lack of Looking At/Hearing Everything ( as grist for the experimental process as its own machine) is an evil. Your default outlook is now that if you don’t build the enemy robot, you are perhaps morally wrong because you would not have not followed what the idealized will-neutral stuff lead you to desire for its own sake; ..which just happens to be evil becuase of the nature of that speech.

    When you look at human beings and try to model and make useful ‘another language’ based on some qualities of human speech and try to exclude bad qualities of human speech, you have still assumed one large meta speech in which you can do that AND that it is essentially your friend. It is not. It is only purifying its being weaponized against the human race and God in particular via the deceit of ‘free’ will as a paradigm under which it operates as ‘amoral’.

    And it could very well be that by now, you think anyone who says what you just read is by definition within your understanding of language, ‘crazy’.

    2 Peter 3:17,18 Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things before, take care lest, being led away along with the error of the wicked, ye should fall from your own stedfastness: but grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.


    In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

    1. Tim,

      The point of this post is to inquire how the human brain utilizes the immense amount of information it is capable of processing through the use of language. The way people think is absolutely not happenstance. Thought is a complex system that matures over decades and certainly is moderated by emotions. Considering a cognitive language system in a logical manner in no way implies that virtues are absent. Concepts and ideas do carry moral weight; that simply was not the focus of this post.

  2. I understood that.

    What I’m saying is that you can’t separate the morals from the process and it seems you are already idealizing that you can do so, only you plan to rule over, per se, the stuff/ideas/ thoughts you want to separate, with morals you have ideally kept aside for that purpose.

    You can’t even say the sentence “The point of this post is to inquire how the human brain utilizes the immense amount of information it is capable of processing through the use of language” without having thought of language as will-neutral meta in support of human freedom of action as a paradigm. What you are after is something that non-living material that makes up mechanical systems in some way can be made to mimic so that the mechanical system can do ‘information computations’ minus the frailties of a ‘human brain’ that has to work with spiritual forces and deal with mortality. You are not looking for a way to put spirit in a machine; yet language is spiritual by nature and you can’t distill out the sound and symbol/shape components of its interaction with physical reality to get what you want.

    You’ve got a picture that at least idealize genetic material doing will-neutral stuff as a symbolic representation of your post. If you and those like you did not think you would find a controllable process that could be used by the human will you would not be looking..

    Of course you are going to find ideal ways that if a human being wasn’t a human being with a spirit and soul would work fantastically for a particular goal. But the solutions you will search for will only be idealized as power enhancers for the already idealized free will. After, all why build the thing, even it is an ‘idea’ or ideology to work against your desires? What I’m saying is that no matter your goals –after– you have put human free will on a pedestal to mimic, and the peculiar take on language that is within that meta, it will end badly.

    And I’m assuming you are a person who cares for other people, sees themselves as moral, other people would agree that you are and that you would never intentionally harm anyone ..other than an evil person a scientific, health related, law enforcement or military capacity. You are a serious person doing what you can to help. Don’t think I think you are already a Nazi.

    If you lose sight of Jesus Christ, you’ll turn around and actually be a Nazi and it will seem the most logical, proven thing that to think like them is Scientific. You have to see ..they wanted the exact same thing you want for the exact same good reasons and they were lied to about Christ in such a manner as to specifically imply they had free will .. and now they are called Nazis.

    I know that you don’t want that. Nobody does.

    But it’s worse than you think: now you/’we’ can’t stop. If you don’t investigate it more plain enemies most certainly will ( already have ) and they will end up with all the enemy robots pointed at us if we don’t. It’s like the atomic bomb: you can’t actually get rid of it now because everyone’s notion of honesty is based on the deception of human free will and thus no one can trust the other party to actually do what they say and get rid of their own because there is too much perceived benefit in keeping it. It’s very alluring.

    So now we’re off and running on a treadmill that basically blows up if we stop, on a certain level it is immoral to stop ( because it would mean forsaking a defensive weapon ) and is it going to blow up anyway at some point no matter what we do.

    And God sent all of it..

    Jeremiah 25:17 And I took the cup at Jehovah’s hand, and made all the nations to drink, to whom Jehovah had sent me: ..Jeremiah 25:27,28 And thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel: Drink, and be drunken, and vomit, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword that I will send among you. And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup from thy hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts: Ye shall certainly drink. For behold, I begin to bring evil on the city that is called by my name, and should ye be altogether unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished; for I call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith Jehovah of hosts.

    Jeremiah 51:7 Babylon hath been a golden cup in Jehovah’s hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunk of her wine; therefore have the nations become mad.


    In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *