How do we learn the "meaning" of a word like "if?"

Or of "and" in the logical sense? Or of "not?" You can't point at an "and" or a "not" if a child asks you what these words mean. I think we take this for granted.

Are we born ready to use certain logical "operators"? How much of our philosophy is based upon these "operators"? What do we know about them? Can we even question them without using them? (I know this sort of question isn't new, but it interests me.)

When we program computers, we use if, and, or, not. Formal logic. Daily conversation. It's how we understand things?

How do we learn the "meaning" of a word like "if?"

The educator can provide the learner with examples that demonstrate how "if" is used in a sentence.

Is this way of conveying meaning still considered to be ostensive?

Newborns recognize changes in quantity, it seems. I can't help but wonder if "if" is somehow a genetic inheritance.

I don't think so. I think it is a learned response. A programming of the human meta-computer, to reference John C. Lilly.

How do we learn the "meaning" of a word like "if?"

Or of "and" in the logical sense?

Or of "not?"

You can't point at an "and" or a "not" if a child asks you what these words mean. I think we take this for granted.

Are we born ready to use certain logical "operators"? How much of our philosophy is based upon these "operators"? What do we know about them? Can we even question them without using them? (I know this sort of question isn't new, but it interests me.)

I don't know. It's tricky, isn't it? This pointing out of "ifness." Newborns recognize changes in quantity, it seems. I can't help but wonder if "if" is somehow a genetic inheritance.

as much as is needed

How do we learn the "meaning" of a word like "if?"

Or of "and" in the logical sense? Or of "not?" You can't point at an "and" or a "not" if a child asks you what these words mean. I think we take this for granted.

Are we born ready to use certain logical "operators"? How much of our philosophy is based upon these "operators"? What do we know about them? Can we even question them without using them? (I know this sort of question isn't new, but it interests me.)

Are we talking only about needs? If the question doesn't interest you, I don't understand why you bother. After all, you added no information really. You dodged the question entirely. And that's fine. But don't expect me to be grateful for your lack of theories of interest in the matter.

Plato says you don't exactly learn those things, it just seems so. You knew them in a past life. So when you grasp them in this life, it's remembering.

I agree that you can't teach someone something they don't already know... if someone's blind, you can't teach them what blue is.

A basic structure to human thought is how I think of it.

and don't expect me to accept that your statement above means anything , really

I gave my thoughts

now refute what I stated

I'm in between. I feel like we have a structure to our thought but that this structure must be abstracted with difficulty from its immersion in experience.

How do we learn the "meaning" of a word like "if?"

Or of "and" in the logical sense? Or of "not?" You can't point at an "and" or a "not" if a child asks you what these words mean. I think we take this for granted.

Are we born ready to use certain logical "operators"? How much of our philosophy is based upon these "operators"? What do we know about them? Can we even question them without using them? (I know this sort of question isn't new, but it interests me.)

Well, I would never deny that there is a learned element to it, but what about a propensity to learn it? It seems hard to reduce to lower terms. Most of our thoughts will break down into components. But I experience the ones mentioned in this thread as atoms. I do see your point. No doubt, we must learn the glyph and the sound associated with the meaning, and perhaps even all the ways the "ifness" and the "notness" hook up. I like the "meta computer." What sort of chip do we have in there/here?

It seems to me that it all comes down to our ability to understand the use of abstracts. Once we understand the use of an abstract, memorizing meanings is a piece of cake. If we can learn the meaning of one word, we can learn the meaning of any word. The things and actions described by words are common to all humans.

The process of inventing names is odd though, how do we pull something out of thin air like that, children learn to do this, it is not inherent.

yet I don't find , if / or / and / not , all that abstract , really



there is just something Natural about it

of course different languages say the same thing in a different way

English is just more succinct

In Chomsky terms the "something natural about it" is the deep structure while different ways of saying the same thing in different languages is the surface structure.