I find it useful to keep in mind the notion that all knowledge is gained by a process of guesswork and criticism. When you listen to my voice or read my words, you must guess at what I mean to convey, because my words by themselves, even if not mumbled, are almost never sufficiently precise to carry my meaning.
So instead, you have to build and discard internal explanatory models of my meaning, criticizing them by cross-checking them with other things I've said, and with your understanding of my understanding of the world. Meanwhile, I'm doing the same thing on the other side, hypothesizing the models that you're creating based on what I've said and trying to add more words to fill any gaps in what I presume that you're presuming that I mean.
When we arrive at a point where you and I both believe that you hold a consistent mental model of what I wished to convey, then we believe that I have communicated to you.
Stated that way, it's clear that communication is really, really hard -- even though we do all of that model building and evaluation without conscious effort in most cases. And it's also quite obvious why it's easier to communicate with people you know well, because both sides have a better mental model of the other's mental model. Both are _wrong_, always, but they're less wrong than similar situations between people with less shared context.
This view also makes it abundantly clear that it's important to validate communication. If you restate to me in your own words what you believe I intended to convey, there's a good chance I'll catch any major discrepancies between what I intended and what you got. A good chance, but we can still end up believing that we're in agreement when we're not.
In theory it is possible to define a language and communication techniques that do not depend on this iterative, contextualized method. This is essentially what we do in formal languages, such as those we use in mathematics or programming. But it is not how people communicate because it's actually far more efficient to rely on compression via shared context than it is to communicate with formal precision. Further, formal communication only obviates guesswork and criticism at the level of understanding which is directly expressed. I can read an assembler program and understand with perfect precision what the individual instructions do, but the leap to understanding the goal of the program again requires guesswork and criticism.
As an aside, it's interesting to note that the process of guess-and-evaluate is essentially the same as the scientific method of hypothesize-and-test and even the same as the evolutionary method of vary-and-select. There's a compelling argument that all knowledge creation occurs via this process -- and communication is knowledge creation, even if it simply conveys an idea from one brain to another, because there's no direct transfer mechanism the receiver of the idea must create it based on observations of the words of the giver.
> communication is knowledge creation, even if it simply conveys an idea from one brain to another, because there's no direct transfer mechanism the receiver of the idea must create it based on observations of the words of the giver.
I feel like science and mathematics (and even computer science) attempts to counter this.
If we can mechanically generate mathematical proofs, and those proofs can be proven equivalent to one another, then we have essentially simplified the abstraction mechanics of the individual brain and transferred them to a computer.
I view abstraction as a means for expanding all potential permutations of a given model and it's application, and then a reduction to a different set of terms that connects models.
We might be able to prove that we can agree with one another, but we might not be able to prove that we agree with our own selves. We can always make the problem more difficult individually by guessing and creating more questions.
To me the process is two sides of the same coin. One side is creation, the other side is destruction. You can't convey an idea without having an idea, and you can't question that idea without having another idea. Negation is still a logical mechanism. You can question whether there is more to think about than a choice between [(exist) or (does not exist)].
I really prefer to think about possibility and potential. It's an open space to me.
So instead, you have to build and discard internal explanatory models of my meaning, criticizing them by cross-checking them with other things I've said, and with your understanding of my understanding of the world. Meanwhile, I'm doing the same thing on the other side, hypothesizing the models that you're creating based on what I've said and trying to add more words to fill any gaps in what I presume that you're presuming that I mean.
When we arrive at a point where you and I both believe that you hold a consistent mental model of what I wished to convey, then we believe that I have communicated to you.
Stated that way, it's clear that communication is really, really hard -- even though we do all of that model building and evaluation without conscious effort in most cases. And it's also quite obvious why it's easier to communicate with people you know well, because both sides have a better mental model of the other's mental model. Both are _wrong_, always, but they're less wrong than similar situations between people with less shared context.
This view also makes it abundantly clear that it's important to validate communication. If you restate to me in your own words what you believe I intended to convey, there's a good chance I'll catch any major discrepancies between what I intended and what you got. A good chance, but we can still end up believing that we're in agreement when we're not.
In theory it is possible to define a language and communication techniques that do not depend on this iterative, contextualized method. This is essentially what we do in formal languages, such as those we use in mathematics or programming. But it is not how people communicate because it's actually far more efficient to rely on compression via shared context than it is to communicate with formal precision. Further, formal communication only obviates guesswork and criticism at the level of understanding which is directly expressed. I can read an assembler program and understand with perfect precision what the individual instructions do, but the leap to understanding the goal of the program again requires guesswork and criticism.
As an aside, it's interesting to note that the process of guess-and-evaluate is essentially the same as the scientific method of hypothesize-and-test and even the same as the evolutionary method of vary-and-select. There's a compelling argument that all knowledge creation occurs via this process -- and communication is knowledge creation, even if it simply conveys an idea from one brain to another, because there's no direct transfer mechanism the receiver of the idea must create it based on observations of the words of the giver.