Idiomatic Conceptualization and Contextual Concepts

This is a bit more detailed discussion of what I mean when I say idiomatic conceptualization and how that relates to contextual concepts.

First, I believe the proper approach to natural language processing (NLP) and information derivation is to NOT parse language as linguistic entities which have a direct correlation to an object and which may be logically manipulated, but rather to interpret language constructs as recognizable patterns which are translatable to contextual concepts.

These recognizable patterns, also known as idioms do not correlate directly to an object, that is, there is no 1:1 mapping from idiom to concept and no philosophical manipulation of idioms as each idiom is atomic unto itself, however, an idiom does provide enough information to the system to combine with context and stored knowledge to produce one or more concepts. It should be noted that these concepts are unique to the interpreting system and not universal among systems, though several systems may agree upon concept interpretation and encoding. To understand this better, think of the concept of the color red. It is not only based on context and environment, but consider how a color blind person stores this information internally versus a person who is not color blind. Do not discount this example as one of faulty input, it is the fact that two different systems may perceive the same sequence of events and derive entirely different information from this activity.

Words do not map to objects and idioms do not map to objects. There is no such thing as the word apple directly referring to an apple, or any word directly referring to any object. Certain idioms may include the concept of an apple but the word apple is not an idiom. To refer to an apple one is not referencing an unchanging object in undefined space for an infinite amount of time, but rather a concept at a certain place at a certain time with a certain atrophy and certain interactions with its environment, and in the case of the concept of an apple, that is really not very valuable information by itself as the apple is typically a part of a larger environment, which in reality may have very little to do with the fact that an apple is contained within it.

I mean this is not the way we think. It is an exercise in futility to just think 'unchanging apple (or anything) in a vacuum forever' because that is a meaningless concept; there is no value there. It is a philosophical contrivance, not a real thought with meaning and purpose. It is not worthy of being parsed or stored.

There is also no such thing as a universal concept or universal truth that is valid for an infinite amount of time. There are no absolutes. There are concepts in contexts which are unique to a given system at a given time; nothing more and nothing less. Systems exist in perceived environments which is nothing more than a collection of contextual concepts.

The set of stored concepts represent the knowledge of the system. The derivation of truth from these concepts may be thought of as the beliefs of the system. Given identical inputs, different systems may produce different belief function outputs. The same system may produce different belief function outputs at different times. There is no such thing as universal truth; truth is an agreed upon belief between one or more systems. Predictions may be made and information may be deduced but the only eternity is the present.