comment 2

In a response to Todd's blog about RE: Semiotics.

The problem with your argument is that you're arguing from examples. You need to step up to a higher level and argue from that point, and then come down to the use of examples. The fact that you have an exception defeats your own arguement. Your expose on God undercuts everything else you were trying to explain.

You use labels as an example to show that different people have different mental constructs of what an object is. Just because we have different labels for something, some having more labels than others (ie: eskimos for ice) doesn't make them any different. Because our labels arise from different cultures doesn't make the objects they refer to different, nor do they change the idea of it.

Yes, society does play a part in our assimilation of information. We are taught what is correct etiquette, what social mores are acceptable, and what sort of dress is appropriate. When refering to these things, they are more abstract and will change depenind on what culture you're in.

Example: American wedding = white wedding, big dinner banquette with dancing. Chinese wedding = chinese formal dress, such as che po's etc., chinese dinner and chinese "games".

When talking about things that are not concrete, then you're theory is more applicable. These things would not exist outside their mental constructs. But when you start talking about physical objects, things that are tangible, they will still exist even if we have no label for them.

At the same time, we all have different mental constructs for differnt objects, like your example for food in English and in Chinese. This isn't a very good example because food is not only an object, but it's a concept as well. It may not necessarily be a failure of your argument, but a failure of language which led to the complication.

I think the issue is the terminology that we're using to discuss this. I have a feeling that your meaning == my mental construct. This, I don't necessarily have an issue with. I mainly have issue with your arguement that and object, independent of a mental construct, ceases to exist is false.