The Logos as a kind of formal and/or cognitive grammar

[eijah]

I was wondering if "In the beginning was the word" might have anything to do with formal grammars? Or cognitive grammars? Or, even better, cognitive formal grammars? Does anyone here know much about any of that stuff? Especially the cognitive formal grammar one which would seem to me to have combination formation/transformation rules.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by eijah

I was wondering if "In the beginning was the word" might have anything to do with formal grammars? Or cognitive grammars? Or, even better, cognitive formal grammars? Does anyone here know much about any of that stuff? Especially the cognitive formal grammar one which would seem to me to have combination formation/transformation rules.

It has absolutely nothing to do with grammars, formal grammars, cognitive grammars, etc.

Don't give this another thought.

[eijah]

Do you know a lot about formal and cognitive grammars? And cognitive formal grammars? Or are you just giving me a knee-jerk answer based on some things you know nothing about? Note: I am not saying you do not have the best of intentions!!! But I am looking for facts, not just sincere opinions.

[Iconoclast08]

Why not divert these sorts of questions toward Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The author of that one was drunk, too.

[Robin]

Looking up cognitive grammars I find the idea was developed from 1982.

I believe St John might have been written a little earlier than that.

[Robin]

And off the top of my head I would say that the prologue to St John is a borrowing of the Hindu Trinity.

[eijah]

Finally, a reasonable well-thought out response!!! Yet I would prefer an answer from some expert in formal and cognitive -- and perhaps even formal cognitive grammars. Because my question is based less on history than on the nature of language and the logic of cognition.
But thanks for your response!

[Brainache]

Quote:

..."In the beginning was the word"...

I suppose it is possible to see the passage as a recognition that religions became possible only after humans had developed a language complex enough to transmit abstract ideas like God. Without the means to describe the numinous, the concept of religion could not spread.

Whether that means formal or cognitive grammar, I have no idea.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by eijah

Do you know a lot about formal and cognitive grammars? And cognitive formal grammars? Or are you just giving me a knee-jerk answer based on some things you know nothing about? Note: I am not saying you do not have the best of intentions!!! But I am looking for facts, not just sincere opinions.

Actually, I do know a lot about formal grammars, etc.

I have a Ph.D. in computer science from Northwestern. I studied logic, automated reasoning and other aspects of AI (including natural language processing, two-level grammars, etc.). The three qualifying exams that I took and passed were in formal theory, programming languages and compiler theory, and artificial intelligence. Formal theory and compiler theory, in particular, get deeply into formal language theory and formal grammars.

I took several linguistics courses as an undergrad in the 70s, including a course on Chomsky's theory of linguistics that involved transformational grammars. In graduate school, I took two more linguistics courses, one on Chomsky's subsequent theory of linuistics (government/binding theory) and a cool linguistics/psychology seminar on cognitive models of linguistic performance.

I have continued to read in favorite aspects of linguistics, cognitive science, and computer science since getting my doctorate.

Nearly all of my research after graduate school has been on developing algorithms for some classic challenging problems - little to do with linguistics and formal language theory, but very cool nonetheless.

That said, one doesn't need these kinds of interests, education, or study to respond intelligently to your OP.

I do not think that any part of the bible is anything more than a myth.

I do not think that "In the beginning was the word..." has any truth, signficance, or importance.

I did appreciate your effort to tie it to formal grammars, etc., but I'm afraid that I regard that effort as misguided. The study of formal grammars is much more interesting to me than any religious studies.

I don't know what you mean about 'facts' in this context: "In the beginning was the word..." was written by a person who knew nothing about formal grammars. I think you are hoping that the study of formal grammars, etc. will illuminate the 'Word of God', but it can not, since there is no 'god' and no logos.

Sorry, but that's my two cents.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by eijah

I was wondering if "In the beginning was the word" might have anything to do with formal grammars? Or cognitive grammars? Or, even better, cognitive formal grammars? Does anyone here know much about any of that stuff? Especially the cognitive formal grammar one which would seem to me to have combination formation/transformation rules.

What would be the connection? The "in the beginning" is just the begin of a story, that of Jesus. Grammars is a tool to analyze natural or formal languages, or to define them. The two are entirely different concepts.

[Iconoclast08]

Originally Posted by eijah

Finally, a reasonable well-thought out response!!! Yet I would prefer an answer from some expert in formal and cognitive -- and perhaps even formal cognitive grammars. Because my question is based less on history than on the nature of language and the logic of cognition.
But thanks for your response!

What Complexity said.

While I think that you are a well-intentioned person, I do not think that the question you posed is of the caliber that warrants such a sophisticated and well-thought-out response drawing from the complexities of language and cognition. To me, it's the same as saying that you need a strong background in zoology to fully grasp what is meant in Eastman's Go, Dog. Go!

It just seems like a waste of time and effort. Why not apply this expertise to meaningful questions as opposed to limbic, iron-age musings?

[HansMustermann]

The Greek idea of Logos was a lot more than "word" or "speech", though. While originally it did mean "word", but also "reason", starting from the 6'th century BC it became a far more profound philosophical concept. It was supposed to be an underlying principle of knowledge and order of the whole universe. It was the very principle that holds the universe together and working, basically.

In a way, when we study dark energy at one end, and quantum mechanics at the other, we are studying that very Logos of Heraclitus and later of the Stoics.

And yes, not all made it divine. A lot of stoics identified it with a reason and animating principle of nature, rather than of a god. In essence, when we study the big bang, we're looking at what the seminal logos that created the universe might have been or done.

In fact, by AD times, they never used "logos" to mean "word" any more. When they wanted to say literally "word", they said "lexis" instead.

For others, logos was any manifestation of divinity, including the universe itself. Any way divinity "speaks" to you, or reveals itself, was logos.

John was likely one step further, and was taking his ideas from Philo. Philo was bridging the gap in Platonism between the imperfect material world and the perfect divine spirit world, with the logos. Logos was not just a principle any more. (Although it still was principle too, and it was what held the world together in his view.) Logos was a living God, a demiurge, "the first-born of God", or the "angel of God", who acted basically as an intermediary between the two realms.

You can probably see by now how John starts basically with Philo's ideas from the first verses... and promptly makes a hash of them.

It's also likely that John didn't literally mean that the Logos as a whole became Jesus, or at least didn't think it through. A world which is no longer permeated and animated by the omnipresent Logos -- because now the Logos as a whole is concentrated in just one special human -- would have died and come apart.

[Robin]

My earlier reference to the Hindu Trinity was from the Brihad-Aranyaka Upanishad:

This universe is a trinity and this is made of name, form and action. The source of all names is the word for it is by the word tha all names are spoken. The word is behind all names even as Brahman is behind the word.

I think this might have been the source of the Greek idea of Logos.

Compare with John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made

And this passage is, I believe, the source of the Christian Trinity. Although I could be wrong about that.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by eijah

Finally, a reasonable well-thought out response!!! Yet I would prefer an answer from some expert in formal and cognitive -- and perhaps even formal cognitive grammars. Because my question is based less on history than on the nature of language and the logic of cognition.
But thanks for your response!

Well, I take exception with your logic of cognition, what is that supposed to mean?

I can suppose, but i will wait for your response. My take will be that it is associative and not formal in the sense of Boolean logic.

[HansMustermann]

In a way, "logic" is just about right. Logos is the root word for logic, which meant the way to reason right, rather than the way to speak right or use the right words. (The latter would be the domain of the lexikon, from lexis.) It's also the root for dialogue, via the Socratic Dialogue genre, also sometimes called the Socratic Logos, but which originally didn't just mean some people talking (although the genre was structured like that) but some wise person dispensing wisdom.

Logos as a proper noun was in a sense basically the logic or sense (as in, "making sense") of the universe.

[eijah]

Thanks for your learned response! And I can see and appreciate your earlier reaction. And no I AM NOT trying to prove the existence of God, just trying to see if there are any things hidden in the bible that may be of a logical and cognitive nature.

And thus onto and into my program. I think it is well appreciated that natural languages are too complex for a cognitive formal grammar. However there seems to me to be a logical possibility of there being a kind of cognitive formal grammar for formal languages -- or at least one (perhaps trivial, perhaps not) formal language. And I may have stumbled upon it like a blind man who trips over a pot of gold. Or maybe Fools' God.

More specially, please consider what follows per the very limited, but perhaps not completely trivial formal language I have formulated:

1) Start out with an ordered alphabet OX1y, and a formal grammar formation (rewriting) rule of...

OX1y -> OOXO1y1OX11y

Obviously, replacing two characters in a four character string with four characters "should" produce a ten character string. BUT that is not what the rule says! So is the rule meaningless or wrong in some other way or what?

I think that its legitimacy can be seen only if and when one takes a second look (a more thoughtful and mindful look) and re-cognizes that O and 1 are operating as (and thus in a way mean that they are) parenthetical modifiers. And if so, that glimmer of semantic light now shining on what is normally seen as syntax's always semantic darkness seems at least to me to be enough to observe something else in retrospect: I.e., my trivial ordered alphabet OX1y also seems to have some kind of originally unsuspected meaning. (Sorry if I am pushing the term "meaning' too far!)

A long time ago, life took my ego away, so I am fully resigned to being wrong. Yet it does much seem to me that when seen in that glimmer of semantic light, my OX1y ordered alphabet both figuratively contains the left-hand side of the formation/rewriting rule AND also seems to me to be literally revealing that rule. And if so, do we not then have some kind of cognitive formal grammar? Perhaps not the kind that is academically rigorous and complete wnough to satisfy a Ph.D. in linguistics , but one that at least does (with a sense of cognitive adventure) minimally meet both the definitions of formal grammar and cognitive grammar?

And if so, perhaps/maybe/possibly... there is some kind of logic, in re-cognizing that beginning with the right word (and an understanding of that right word in a cognitively informed formal way) leads to more right words. AS WELL AS the ability to parse out all of the wrong non-sense words that were added the centuries by well-meaning fools and not well-meaning knaves. Note: I said perhaps/maybe/possibly. Not surely, but I think it would be a very cool way to look at and contemplate the words and wording of all kinds of scriptures if I am on to something -- other than on something! :-)

[Complexity]

My dismissal of logos was with regard to its use in the bible and how xians love to think about it.

The word, untainted by religion, is quite cool.

It isn't by accident that I love to study ancient Greek history. It is so lovely to read about a world that knew nothing of xians and knew or cared nothing about the OT.

[eijah]

Indeed, VERY cool! And from what you said, I suppose what I I am trying to see if some kind of cognitive formal grammar might be able to be used to parse various statements in various scriptures to separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. :-) And even if not likely, perhaps possible.

In any case, what do you make of my ordered alphabet and an associated production rule which produces 12 letters instead of 10? And my possibly misguided, perhaps not observation that it in retrospect seems to add a glimmer of implicit meaning to the explicit syntax?

[Robin]

I don't think you are seeing the big picture.

A method of parsing scriptures is tinkertoys. You have got to think bigger. Here is the text in question again.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made

That is clearly talking about much more than a method of parsing scripture. That is saying that through the Word all things were made.

We know that there are various conjectures going around about a very simple rule being able to explain all of physics. Feynman briefly suggested something like this. Also Wolfram and more recently the idea has been taken up more seriously.

A very simple rule - an automaton - is something like a formal grammar.

And also you will recall that God calls himself the alpha and the omega. An alphabet is also necessary for a formal grammar.

So here is the idea - there is a word - say YVH and a rule for manipulating this word (encoded somewhere in the Bible, possibly Leviticus or the Apocalypse) using a particular alphabet.

And this would - given a sufficiently large number of iterations - would end up describing all the known laws of physics and provide the basis for solving all the outstanding problems of physics.

Am I onto something here? Oh, excuse me there is someone at the door. What is an albino monk doing out this time of night...?

[eijah]

Hi Robin.

Alas, I think very small. not very big. So what I am looking to know is whether or not my production rule that produces 12 character instead of 10 has a glimmer of semantics in its syntax? And what the logical and cognitive consequences might be?

OTOH, I cheerfully cheer you on in your investigation of the unlikely, but I suppose possible possibility that the Tetragrammaton is the key that unlocks the secrets of the bible. And perhaps adds insights about physics and I suppose also biology, economics, politics... if I am correctly following your (at least to me) somewhat questionable logic.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by eijah

Do you know a lot about formal and cognitive grammars?

Yes, he does. And for that matter, yes, I do.

Quote:

And cognitive formal grammars?

Yes, I do.

And Complexity is dead-on accurate.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by eijah

Alas, I think very small. not very big. So what I am looking to know is whether or not my production rule that produces 12 character instead of 10 has a glimmer of semantics in its syntax?

No, it doesn't.

Quote:

And what the logical and cognitive consequences might be?

None.

[HansMustermann]

Just to hammer on that some more: while such a parsing method may or may not exist, the Logos is not it. Logos was basically mis-translated as "word" there. Well, ok, not as much "mis-translated" as simply no other languages than Greek had a single word for that concept. "Word" is a probably the closest English word you can get that is still one single word, and yet horribly wrong sematically.

What John was very likely saying, really has _nothing_ to do with words, speech, grammar, or method of parsing a text.

Basically if you must start your quest for a bible-code from somewhere, well, at least don't base it on a mis-translation

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by eijah

More specially, please consider what follows per the very limited, but perhaps not completely trivial formal language I have formulated:

1) Start out with an ordered alphabet OX1y, and a formal grammar formation (rewriting) rule of...

OX1y -> OOXO1y1OX11y

Obviously, replacing two characters in a four character string with four characters "should" produce a ten character string.

You're not "replacing" two characters with four in any meaningful sense. You might think that you're replacing the X and 1 with something (and leaving the O and the y alone) :

O OXO1y 1OX11 y

But if you look at that "replacement" the replacement is actually 5 for 1, not 4 for 1.

Quote:

BUT that is not what the rule says! So is the rule meaningless or wrong in some other way or what?

No, the statement that is wrong is the meta-statement that "replacing two characters in a four character string with four characters "should" produce a ten character string." That doesn't have any connection with the particular production rule you described above.

Quote:

I think that its legitimacy can be seen only if and when one takes a second look (a more thoughtful and mindful look) and re-cognizes that O and 1 are operating as (and thus in a way mean that they are) parenthetical modifiers.

No. Semantic interpretation is independent of the syntax; while you can impose a form of semantics on it if you like, that's completely inside the privacy of your own mind.

That's pretty fundamental set theory, actually; to any satisfiable set of (formal) productions there are usually zillions of models that instantiate and satisfy them. There's no such thing as _the_ semantics of a given syntactic production.

Quote:

And if so, do we not then have some kind of cognitive formal grammar?

No.

Quote:

Perhaps not the kind that is academically rigorous and complete wnough to satisfy a Ph.D. in linguistics , but one that at least does (with a sense of cognitive adventure) minimally meet both the definitions of formal grammar and cognitive grammar?

No.

Quote:

And if so, perhaps/maybe/possibly... there is some kind of logic, in re-cognizing that beginning with the right word (and an understanding of that right word in a cognitively informed formal way) leads to more right words. AS WELL AS the ability to parse out all of the wrong non-sense words that were added the centuries by well-meaning fools and not well-meaning knaves.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by eijah

Hi Robin.

Alas, I think very small. not very big. So what I am looking to know is whether or not my production rule that produces 12 character instead of 10 has a glimmer of semantics in its syntax? And what the logical and cognitive consequences might be?

OTOH, I cheerfully cheer you on in your investigation of the unlikely, but I suppose possible possibility that the Tetragrammaton is the key that unlocks the secrets of the bible. And perhaps adds insights about physics and I suppose also biology, economics, politics... if I am correctly following your (at least to me) somewhat questionable logic.

No, you don't understand. It doesn't unlock the secrets of the Bible. It only unlocks the secrets of the universe.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by drkitten

No, it doesn't.



None.

You may well be right. But just saying it is not does not make it not right, unless you are God. Which I very much doubt is the case for a number of logical reasons, including the fact that it is unlikely that there is a God.

So getting beyond your God Role-playing, I cannot see how you can be correct about what you are insisting is true by fiat. Although I suppose you might be correct from using a logic argument.

In any case, once again, here is my problem...

If we see formal grammar as syntax only, and we begin with OX1y and we simultaneously replace X and y with OX1y, we get OOX1y1OX1y, yes?

But our production rule instead gives us OOXO1y1Ox11y. So what is this revealing? That is, how can this production rule be made sense of?
I am inclined to believe only be realizing that O and 1 are parenthetical operators. I.e., O means () and thus OX is equivalent to (X) and 1 stands for [1] and thus Oy is equivalent to [y]. And if so, then there is at least a glimmer of semantics in what we originally took as wholly being syntax.

You may heartily disagree, and maybe you really are correct. But if you actually do have anything useful to contribute to this thread, please stop playing God and instead start being serious if you have the right expertise, and a helpful way of applying it.

[eijah]

Jeez, this is so confusing to me. I mean OOXO1y1OX11y :-(

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by eijah

But our production rule instead gives us OOXO1y1Ox11y. So what is this revealing?

Absolutely nothing.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by eijah

In any case, once again, here is my problem...

If we see formal grammar as syntax only, and we begin with OX1y and we simultaneously replace X and y with OX1y, we get OOX1y1OX1y, yes?

But our production rule instead gives us OOXO1y1Ox11y. So what is this revealing?

That different rules give different results?

[PixyMisa]

Well, there's that.

[Philosaur]

You are switching production rules mid-argument, which is the source of your confusion.

Here's your original rule:

Quote:

OX1y -> OOXO1y1OX11y

And here's where you specify your second (pair of) rules:

Quote:

we begin with OX1y and we simultaneously replace X and y with OX1y, we get OOX1y1OX1y, yes?

Which, when written out as rules is:

1. X -> OX1y
2. Y -> OX1y

So it's no surprise that you get 12 characters by applying your original production rule, and only 10 characters when applying this new pair of rules.

What's the mystery again?

[eijah]

I think you are correct, but with a twist.

What I mean is that the statement "replace the X and y in OX1y with OX1y" gives both a purely syntactical right-hand of the rule AND a right-hand alternative one introducing us to some glimmer of meaning. This might be like the way changing the parallel lines stuff in Euclid introduced us to non-Euclidean geometry. Or maybe not. In any case, I am neither a linguist nor a mathematician, just for better and worse an iconoclastic bull in a conventional wisdom china shop. With the possibility of my having stumbled upon a cognitive formal grammar.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by eijah

I think you are correct, but with a twist.

What I mean is that the statement "replace the X and y in OX1y with OX1y" gives both a purely syntactical right-hand of the rule AND a right-hand alternative one introducing us to some glimmer of meaning.

But how does it lead to the alternate one? It doesn't as far as I can see.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by eijah

In any case, once again, here is my problem...

If we see formal grammar as syntax only, and we begin with OX1y and we simultaneously replace X and y with OX1y, we get OOX1y1OX1y, yes?

But our production rule instead gives us OOXO1y1Ox11y. So what is this revealing?

That your second production rule is a different production rule (than the first).

Quote:

That is, how can this production rule be made sense of?

Nothing else need be "made sense of." Production rules are arbitrary transformations.

[Philosaur]

Originally Posted by eijah

A long time ago, life took my ego away, so I am fully resigned to being wrong.

Originally Posted by eijah

I am neither a linguist nor a mathematician, just for better and worse an iconoclastic bull in a conventional wisdom china shop. With the possibility of my having stumbled upon a cognitive formal grammar.

Whew, that was a quick 180!

Well, you may have stumbled upon a cognitive formal grammar, but neither your logos argument nor your production rules will ever convince anyone who knows anything about formal or cognitive grammars.

Have fun being the lonely, misunderstood genius you've cast yourself to be!

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Philosaur

You are switching production rules mid-argument, which is the source of your confusion.

Here's your original rule:


And here's where you specify your second (pair of) rules:

Which, when written out as rules is:

1. X -> OX1y
2. Y -> OX1y

So it's no surprise that you get 12 characters by applying your original production rule, and only 10 characters when applying this new pair of rules.

What's the mystery again?

Much thanks, and right on when we have two rules. But I think that when there is only one rule, we ironically end up with both the semantic ambiguity found in pure syntax per the first (conventional) interpretation of the rule AND also an optional (non-conventional) glimmer of semantics per the alternative.

[Philosaur]

Originally Posted by eijah

Much thanks, and right on when we have two rules. But I think that when there is only one rule, we ironically end up with both the semantic ambiguity found in pure syntax per the first (conventional) interpretation of the rule AND also an optional (non-conventional) glimmer of semantics per the alternative.

You're just re-stating your conclusion. Where's the argument (that we haven't already dealt with) to back it up? Or are you just expressing an opinion?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by eijah

But I think that when there is only one rule, we ironically end up with both the semantic ambiguity found in pure syntax per the first (conventional) interpretation of the rule AND also an optional (non-conventional) glimmer of semantics per the alternative.

No. There is no "semantic ambiguity found in pure syntax" because pure syntax by definition has no semantics.

That's actually one of the deeper results in the fundamentals of 20th century logic and mathematics, and it underlays many (most?) of the major results -- the independence of the continuum hypothesis, the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem, and of course the various Gödelian incompleteness results, Tarski's undecidability of truth, &c. Basically, syntax cannot fully express semantics; semantics can only be imposed upon a system by an observer -- and any reasonably complex system can always have multiple valid interpretations imposed upon it (if it can have any at all).

[Philosaur]

Gavagai!

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Philosaur

You're just re-stating your conclusion. Where's the argument (that we haven't already dealt with) to back it up? Or are you just expressing an opinion?

Neither. Just the observation that simultaneous replacing X and y in OX1y with OXly either produces OOX1OyOOX11y or OOX1y1OX1y, depending on whether O and 1 are parenthetical modifier operators or are not.

And, of course, asking those on this thread, per the former, the logical reasons why or why not OX1y -> OOx1OyOOx11y is a production rule for some kind of, apparently previously not examined, possible cognitive formal grammar. Note: resorting to authority in this case has as much weight with me as relying on a Scholastic proof of God to explain why apples fall from the limbs of trees. We can see two different results when O and 1 do and do not mean operating as parenthetical modifiers. Bringing in Goedel, Tarski and Hutch and Santa Claus and St. Augustine... seem to me to add nothing to answering my question.

BTW, considering the emotionally changed nature of many of the reactions in this section, and totally apart from my original Logos context (which was only a means of fitting my cognitive formal grammar question into this P&R section), perhaps exploring my and other possible cognitive formal grammars is better accomplished in some other topic in this Forum! Any suggestions?