[pixelperfect]

The lack of inherent existence of the cloud seems to be the most logical solution to this problem. Although the cloud has no inherent existence, if we look at the same spot in the sky, I have a perception of a cloud, and you have a perception of a cloud. Our perceptions are not the same, and when we get to the edges of the cloud the boundaries we perceive are highly likely to differ. Nevertheless, because our perceptions have so much in common, I can say "that cloud" to you will know what I am talking about. Your perception will still differ from mine, especially along the borders of the cloud, but the differences in perception are not likely to be important for the sake of our discussion. The author's rebuttal in paragraph 3 of the Nihilism section looks weak to me.

[drcomputer]

I'm going to guess you've never had an extreme problem in communication throughout your entire existence.

For some time, for me, the grammatical structure of my sentences formed such a weak relationship to the interpretation of meaning of language, that a single word of a single sentence in a single paragraph could compose many meanings, and that doing this over and over throughout the paragraph could compose many more meanings, until all comprehension of what was intended to be expressed seemed to be completely lost. Communication had distinct dual meanings often, sometimes many, many more. The grammatical structure serves as an abstract form, then each word relationship is applied and toyed around with until associations that have nothing to do with the topic at hand are formed. I would be lost in attempting to speak back to someone. When I tried to speak, I would run off on a tangent that received blank stares at best. I was convinced people were purposefully messing with my head, but it was only the extraction of a single word from a single sentence that projected itself into my imagination and then distorted itself into a web of intricate knots that continued to build one after the other.

Some people call this telling stories. For me, it was the way I perceived my reality, even though my perception held in thought never matched my reality.

I have a habit of escaping into complex mathematics, so at least I have the illusion of intelligence (although it turns out, I am very good at complex mathematics, and this is useful). But it's very difficult, living like this. The single and the many is a real problem. You can think you know what you are talking about, but until you actually become convinced that every sentence can be interpreted completely differently by the listener, and by some form of magic I call compassion of others noticing how completely aloof I am, you manage to exist in society as member that actually contributes something. Also, when you intersect with people really frequently over short gaps that are spaced out by really long gaps of 'misunderstanding one another', then it's freaky and causality gets all tangled and you can sometimes get convinced that people can read your mind.

You may say cloud, but when I first read this article, I thought of the internet clouds, instead of water clouds. Now, this is only a small delta change between word choice. Imagine that a single sentence can be interpreted in millions of ways, and it can be continued on in conversation, in other sentences in millions of ways, and no one actually has a clue of what is being spoken about, but we all think we do. This is why I prefer to stare at my whiteboard with complex mathematics.

[JonnieCache]

Perhaps you should go in the other direction and write poetry. It seems youre most of the way there already. Your post is elegant and strange. I had the urge to read it aloud.

[drcomputer]

I grew up writing poetry. I have a love of words, metaphor, literature, sentence structure, composition (in music as well). But the base form is mathematically expressible, that is the foundation of every perception to me. It's the only thing that can't mutate into something else - it can be used to express that which is not itself, but mathematics is formal structure itself. The symbols and organization are typically just decoration. It either makes sense or it doesn't, in that abstract form. I don't find that kind of unity really anywhere else. I appreciate the compliment, though.

[jschwartzi]

Ambiguity is one of the most fascinating things about natural language, because it leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, and so much of our knowledge of each other is constructed from how we speak to each other and what we say. Yet still, through all of the ambiguity, I suspect that we all understand each other much better than we believe or not much of value would have ever been created.

So much of how we talk to each other is about faith that we are understood. If you lose that faith, you start to question whether other people know who you are and what you mean. In reality, I don't think anyone can ever know, although some people may come close.

Formal language tries to eliminate ambiguity, because throughout history many people have realized what you have. There's nothing wrong with eliminating ambiguity, but it is important to recognize its purpose and place, and to get comfortable with informal language where it is needed. Artistry also lies in knowing what to leave undone, after all.

[fenollp]

This ambiguity is something I tried to put in words so many times, and you did it so very eloquently!

During a discussion I will often find myself go on multiple tangents to test the meaning of a phrase I am listening to, lopping with each new word coming in. And surprisingly to most I will sometimes arrive at multiple meanings I grasped and incidentally can't decide on which to pick!

While this is really embarrassing at times, I however consider this capacity of seeing a difference where most don't: a gift. The brain grows on this branching capability and I believe it is exactly this that enables me to understand a conversation faster than average.

So I have a somewhat autistic level of conversation but also have access to uncommon thought patterns just through casual conversation.

Thank you for sharing this.

[rbrogan]

What weight does an interpretation hold? I would propose adopting a basic rule similar to Occam's Razor like: "The most mundane and reasonable interpretation is best."

[drcomputer]

How did you learn to understand what 'mundane' means?