Summary: We might consider word-sensibility as a sum of information that initiates right before a word-sense is made. At this initial point it might be best generally described as one’s unattended interactivity. Unattended interactivity is used here as a generic term referring to one’s occurrent resources belonging to brain, body and environment. In theory, we suggest, that word-sensibility begins an autonomous trace between unattended interactivity and attended interactivity. For instance, when a child asks, “what is that?” unattended interactivity becomes attended interactivity for both child and parent. This begins a shared anticipation for association and, we suggest, is a basic dynamic, part of our communicative nature. It is a primitive social dynamic that a child engages with as they interact with others and will remain as an essential dynamic throughout the child’s life.
The Quadranym Model of Word-Sensibility (Q): An Ecological Systems Perspective On Word-Level-Concepts & Contextual Unitizations – Non-Mental-Representation Representation – Design Before Define Approach.
Autonomous Traces: There aren’t many utterances more powerful than “What is that?” We suggest that its power is, in certain ways, due to a conative exchange that we call the orientation of interactivity (OI). It can also be caused without any verbal exchange or direct signals and can happen by simply sharing a task or a field of focus. Theoretically, the innate occurrent trace – ‘unattended interactivity becoming attended interactivity’ – is a dynamic that we as humans innately respond to but don’t acknowledge, except for the shared focus that comes from it. We submit the orientation of interactivity hypothesis as a study of inter-subjectivity, and maybe more specifically of Participatory Sense-Making (De Jaegher, Di Paolo, 2007). An ecological description is also considered with the idea of Sensory Motor Empathy; one becomes dynamically in-phase with another (Chemero, 2016). Essentially, it begins with the orientative sense of the individual.
Orientation of Interactivity of the Individual
Consider the image above, orientation represents the interactivity of an individual. The actual node represent remembered experiences and the potential node represents their potential conditions. Potential conditions are array of senses that easily couple to actual senses. Actual sense does not refer to the actual world, but to that which is driven by the actual world.
Orientation of Interactivity Between Individuals
The image above illustrates two individuals sharing common experiences to share focus. The transformation is from two discrete interacting units to one interacting unit. The behavioral benefit is about increasing capacity to relate better potential conditions to the occurrent area of anticipation.
Orientation of Interactivity and the Dynamical Context
Humans have a clear advantage over machines when it comes to understanding words because humans experience the world and machines don’t. Humans apply intentional variability to their experiences, a likely result of highly evolved social behaviors where organismic processes come to signify predictions or counter factuals. Word-sensibility initiates before a word-sense so to allow general responsive dynamics of one’s experience to manifest. The word-sensibility model illustrates an equivocation process to provide orientation for our abstractions. We suggest, that through conative and affective exchanges, humans have acquired a skill to capture in themselves a sense of actual activity (i.e., dynamical context) used to constrain a sense of potential conditions (i.e., situational context) of experience or behavior shared between people. The idea is that ‘coherent sense‘, refers to the orientation of interactivity (OI) occurring between people. One orients with another. The orientational process describes a kind of empathy where individuals learn to orient abstract information with others and consequently also for themselves (e.g., myths).
- The OI postulates a ritual that involves in some part a biological mode, a way of tuning individual external behaviors to one another through an internal channel. It’s like possession, a motivating feature in the human software that allows it to serve a function outside and beyond its individual programing.
Consider the OI in evolutionary terms theoretically representing a kind of organismic response mechanism to the environment and overtime evolves into a social mechanism. When the OI experience or behavior is shared this refers to one orienting with another and ‘coherent sense’ is attributed between people; an evolved dynamic that changes the individual. Now, for the individual, the dynamical context is used as a constraint to which situations can be reconsidered using explicit thoughts that is much like talking to one’s self. Here, the ‘coherent sense‘ refers to OI attributed only to the individual. So again, through conative and affective exchanges, humans have acquired a skill to capture in themselves a dynamical context used to constrain possible outcomes or situational context to which another person is drawn in to educe the same basic constraining behavior (i.e., sync). To put it simply, the dynamical context is the ability to constrain and sync where the situational context is the ability to communicate conditions.
- OI relational dynamics for individuals and society are virtually the same. The social OI enhances the situational context ability of the OI for the individual.
The dynamical context is about abstractions anchored on instantial experiences; unattended/attended synergistic responses to the world. Consider the sense of resonating with something and using that experience to help make sense of other things. Theoretically, dynamical contexts are derived from instantial experiences and are modulated in the OI. In other words, instantial experiences become units of context because affective and conative responsive dynamics are effectively shared. This refers to units of responsiveness that inform instantial experiences of some typical intention or motivation in a way that resonates with others and, this proves the dynamical context; responsive adaptations to the world able to be repurposed. Sharing how another feels or is motivated provides evolutionary advantages as a society forms like minded objectives. Individuals of society interact with the world and learn how their interactions relate to others and consequently, also to other things. This describes a reciprocity between the motivations of individual interactions and the constraints or definitions provided by society. We suggest that we assign a value to these kinds of reciprocal dynamics and, in this way; the dynamic interaction between personal motivations and social constraints form word-sensibility units as a means to orient the values people share.
- Consider that human’s naturally share their responses more so than the precise details of events. This speaks to the useful ease of dynamical contexts.
The dynamical context in accord with the Q model is about discrete unitizations of topical orientations and their interrelationships (i.e., OI). Dynamic relations distributed through out the system are virtually metaphorical mappings. That is, dynamical contexts are useful because they’re transferable from one situation or behavior to another.
- In the Q model, there is no real cause found in the world. There is only the orientation of interactivity, a mechanism in which focus is shared with another. Any cause is a sharing of an event and not ever any event alone. That is to say, the orientation of interactivity is about sharing responses.
Words & Word-Sensibility in a System of Orientation
In the Q model, actual coherent sense refers to units of dynamical contexts used to orient with simulated interactions with the world. The potential conditional sense refers to the area of anticipation or trajectory in the unit.
A reciprocal relationship between an organism and its environment constitutes more-experience-necessary. This is the reason for the being of the coherent sense, where no-more-experience-necessary relates to areas of becoming-conditions in relation to the potentials of the coherent sense. A sense of novelty excites sensibility, a sense of familiarity relaxes it. Once potentials are realized, no-more-experience-necessary is the sense. Word-sensibility is about resolving conflicts between coherent and conditional senses on different layers so to continue cycles of essential reciprocity.
- Coherent Sense: The environment drives actual sense to potential conditions in a way that others can share in and anticipate with.
- Conditional sense: interactions with the world causes a remembering behavior to guide a unit of actual sense to the subsets of its potential conditions, based on its occurring resonance with the situation.
Bias: The distinction between an actual coherent state and a potential conditional state depends on the ‘coherent bias’ already intrinsically attributed to the organism. Theoretically, in word-sensibility, no practice to attain the attribute of coherency is needed to have actual coherent sense; it is an attribute already present in a state of mind. On the other hand, potential coherency is not the same, it is essentially a potential condition of the actual coherent state. For instance, learning to solve a math problem is about achieving a potential condition, that is, it is about attaining coherent sense through a procedure. However, the actual coherent bias is required before a potential coherent condition can be achieved. We suggest, that the actual coherent sense of an organism is an important categorical presumption required if the responsiveness of words are to be systematically positioned in a word-sensibility system. It can be thought of as resonance used to hold potentials with the world. For those familiar with the term, you might see how umwelt is implicated – the model focuses on the organismic process of signification for any potential or counter factual.
Units: When perturbed, a coherent sense becomes a subset of itself to maintain its orientation. This is a condition already coupled to a resonance. A system depends on these couplings to make predictions and at times to actually perceive the world in a way that is frugal with time and energy. The goal of this coupling is to secure a resonance a unit of context, a relative place in a system that keeps it useful and relevant in the scheme.
Counter Factuals: Consider the word if: If the dog see’s the cat… If the wind blows… If there is more… A single word can be itself a coherent sense. If is not coherent with the world as in taking on an true object, rather it is coherent with one able to extend actual coherency out into the world. It signals a response and like any word, If always begins as an actual dynamical context; an actualized coherent response to potential conditions of interactivity. A prime potential is the categorical point that through practice easily follows a given orientation of the coherent sense.
- Theoretically, the coherent sense in all its forms is an orientation from which conditional realizations develop and unitize.
- Coherent bias_if: coherent-sense_supposition → conditional-sense_event
- If:[Potentials(actual_ supposition) → Actuals(potential_ event)]
Above represents a general sphere of understanding. Consider this statement; “The sign would not have fallen over if not for the wind.
For the statement above, consider the template as follows. IF actual_ supposition THEN potential_ occurring IF potential_ event ELSE actual_ result.
- Memory interacts with and proves the environment as part of the physical body. Mental images are the body’s interaction with the environment. Representation and memory are nearly synonymous in this sense. Remembering constrains conditions where only dynamics are perceived.
How organisms couple and decouple with environmental inputs is a contentious area of research in cognitive science and is beyond the scope of this article. For now, it might be helpful to think of the coherent bias representing a decoupled state that anticipates coupling with another. That is, it is actual dynamic sense that develops when coupled, through the orientation of interactivity with another, so to anticipate conditions.
Denoting Conditions: In Q representation, every word is described as having the two basic dynamic points (coherent & conditional). Each point is essentially a general role with particular characteristics that together intend a particular denotation and general sphere of understanding.
- A coherent state is best represented as the constant state and a conditional state is best represented as the variable state. Q-units consists of these two points as well as two points that define the modes that the states are in.
In our standard example, the verb eat and the noun bird together form a complete unit of thought; Eat bird. It contains grammatical concepts, such as, intransitive, active, imperative and object. That much is clear. What isn’t clear is how each word is categorized as objects of experience.
A machine will encounter many ambiguities where a human will easily understand the situation. Let’s say robin functions like a prototype to provide one with an actual sense of the word, bird (Rosch, 1975), hungry isn’t a prototype but is able to do a similar task for the word, eat, in other words, each sense–word (hungry, robin) acts as a coherent core for their perspective denotations. Food is a condition-potential role that follows immanent sense hungry and together intend the denotation, eat. Other-birds is a condition-potential role that follows the immanent prototypical sense robin and together intends, bird. In each Q unit, represented is the immanent and what necessarily must transcend the immanent. This implicates the current skills or resources that one has to exploit in the world. Humans understand that in most situations robin, although a prototypical bird, would not be a bird to eat. In our approach, what implicates a sensibility here, is that a view of this sort can change depending on skills and resources available. Environments change behaviors and these changes are represented in Q units.
- Instantial experiences are temporal conditions relived through generic coherent-sense and conditional-sense roles where specific circumstances give rise to specific kinds of content for these roles.
The image above represents the generic construct of an instantial experience. It occurs and reoccurs on all contextual levels. In this process, cycles of instantial experience occur less frequently on general levels of context and more frequently on specific levels of context. For instance, one becomes hungry daily, however, what one eats often changes daily. Also, words have default standpoint perspectives that can change contextually at one level with a given condition but still, at deeper levels, remain as unattended anchors of a word-sensibility topic. For example, the word eat need not reference hungry if one is describing the eating action of a wood chipper, still, as an anchor, the denotation eat will likely maintain a motivated perspective of hungry on unattended levels from which metaphoric responsive relations can emerge, for instance, one might joke that a wood chipper is working well and resembles her brother-in-law, where, appetite via hungry is non-declarative but well anchored and therefore the joke is understood. It is a good joke because of the motivated standpoint that is well grounded and generally sensed by others.
Naive Standpoints: In our approach, words have a relational description that coincides with the theory of affordances (Gibson, 1977). To be clear, we are not claiming a linguistic approach to affordances. Our approach to a word-sensibility model is centered on the question of what is commonsense. In the approach, a particular relationship between a coherent sense and conditional sense is called a naive standpoint. Naive standpoints are dynamic responses that respond to the opportunities that the world provides for an organism to exploit. Where the coherent bias can be about how something ought to be viewed, the naive standpoint is only about an organism resonating with the environment. We describe it as a process of direct experience constrained by a organismic system of context. It is important to note that it is not making a judgement, rather, it is dynamically interacted with as a judgement. It resonates unconditionally while multi-organizational dynamics cause a particular response to it.
- How a coherent bias might resonate depends on its array of naive standpoints. The multi-organizational dynamics of contextual levels can be essentially described as a gestalt generating a cause to respond.
Source & Target: Consider a metaphorical analysis involving a source and a target and how this analysis might apply in the realm of a single word-unit. With this idea, the ‘metaphorical word target‘ can be found in any dictionary. What we mean by this is, the ‘metaphorical word source‘ is in the organismic interactions of one’s experiences. The naive standpoint of a word is generally grounded and active in this source. So, in our example, hungry has become a motivated standpoint of the word eat. It is now a sensibility intrinsically grounded by one’s basic motivations and tendencies.
The trajectory of word-sensibility components means that a word being a sense can become another sense. How this becoming develops depends on the ocurrent actions. Occurrent actions are defined between motivations and judgments (i.e., instantial experience), So, if eat is chewing than chewing is what eat is being. So now the question is, what is being eat becoming? It can become almost anything because we are looking for a new sense. So it could become a wood chipper, corrosion or food. If the actions are between motivation_sate and judgment_starve we might infer that chewing pertains to hungry or food. If the actions are between motivation_chunk and judgment_fragment this might infer breaking something into bits. Note that the motivation_portion refers to the larger bit, and the judgment-portion refers to the smaller bit. chunk and fragment are acting as complimentary terms of the trajectory of action captured as a dynamical context.
- motive_Sate(standpoint_hungry] → judge_Starve(object_food)
- motive_Chunk(standpoint_chewing) → judge_Fragment(object_substance)
The examples above present four basic dimensions of the model. However, there are many ways to look at these dimensions. Dimensions are basically divided between content roles, for instance: sate, hungry, starve, food, and, Meta-dimensional Roles: motive, standpoint, judge, object. There are many Meta-Dimensional Roles. Meta-Dimensional Roles are more like ‘sources’ where content Roles are more like ‘targets’.
For more information: About The Q model: Q components
Conventionally, words are attended signs that denote objects in the world and also includes denoting our moods, feelings and attitudes. On the other hand, word-sensibilities involves mostly unattended behavioral responses, such as, coping, skills, valence, compulsions, synergies. It virtually blends perceptional interactions with motivations and tendencies.
In our approach for a representation of word-sensibility, a robust understanding of the relationships between the principles below is a goal of this research:
- Analog Principle (Word-Sensibility): Simulations of direct experiences normalize perceptions of interactivity so an abstract sense might have an actual orientation. Actual orientation is caused by social interactions where discrete simulations grounding abstractions become motivations entwined between individuals. From a process like this social norms might emerge.
- Denotation Principle (Word Sense): A words potential as a resource (of the orientation) is to be then aligned with a true object in the world. This requires a sense to transcend an actual orientation where its particular grammatical use will comply to a particular word sense representing a truth condition in the world.
We might imagine 1. as pertaining more to episodic memory and 2. as pertaining more to semantic memory.
Memes: A word-sensibility exchange might be well compared to sharing a kind of memetic unit, memetic not just in reference to its virality, but maybe even more due to its many manifestations. This is a good place to evoke the notion of memes. Memes in the context of word-sensibility relates to how societies will respond, through individuals of society, a relationship with social and natural environments. This relationship virtually plays out in Q system interactions between realms, hierarchies and domains. We refer to these interactions as experiential myths (a term used in cognitive linguistics to refer to metaphorical mappings). The coherent and conditional dynamics of the experiential myth will change as they move from one individual to another. This is because each individual can experience an environment in ways different from others. As already suggested, coping is an important aspect of human sensibility and the primary cause of stress to one’s sensibility is often the threats and anxieties as it might pertain to our different environments. This filters through all levels of societal living. To be clear, we are not claiming or even suggesting that a culture or any individual can be categorized using memetic analysis. It only applies here as a description between words and the pressures of the environment that dynamically normalize or change the potentials of word-sensibility. Natural human sensibilities are essentially driven by our environments. We are suggesting that societal dynamics tap this energy to form word-sensibility.
- The environment is a place for our responses and our responses are a place for our words.
The Q provides dynamic frameworks for specified terms.
Final Thoughts: The Principle of the Orientation of Interactivity is more about basic dynamic dimensions then about any specific roles one might use. It represents a general structure that, through a kind of ritual, becomes individuated by the roles that are attributed to it. Q-units model the stage where the roles of some dynamic can play out. Specific structures emerge from the general structure to form hierarchical nested states that are always on some level changing. We suggest that a society through its rituals and traditions, will attempt to lock these hierarchical states up and individuals will eventually rise to influence others to help knock them down. Also, changes to nested hierarchical states will arise simply through technological dynamics, for instance, consider new economic or medical practices, values adjust. It would seem that a healthy society would need to strike a balance between technological advancement and social values. Overall, it’s a reciprocal dynamic between individuals and society that form the orientation of interactivity and the word-sensibilities that emerge.
In the next post, we will overview a variety of basic concepts necessary for a word-sensibility approach to commonsense knowing and ontology.