We seem to be concluding that there is a big difference between a
language/definition based context (described by Ricardo in his earlier
comment) and an environmental/experiential context, which perhaps is the
Umwelt.
Jerry Chandler's comments about definitions of "Umwelt" ironicly exemplify
the problem we began discussing, i.e., we need a context (Umwelt) to
understand "Umwelt."
There is no advantage in defining a concept more precisely than one
understands it. When someone constructs a virtual "Umwelt" we'll have a
better idea of what it is, and it may then get named after that person. But
the symbol (word) is meaningless until we know it refers to.
So I conclude:
1. The word definition game (either us trying to define "Umwelt" or the
computer trying to link symbols without grounding) doesn't add new
information until it triggers an experiential context that can provide
meaning (the grounding problem).
2. We have very little idea what experience is.
A first step seems to be to develop some ideas on the nature of experience.
Semiotics seems like the closest attempt, but it doesn't solve the
grounding problem.
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)