2)文本的内容 (#ENS 其实是文本.eth)。我对“words”非常着迷也喜欢琢磨,是因为受到 @sapinker Steven Pinker 在the stuff of thoughts和 Julian Jaynes 在 the origin of consciousness 二分心智中对语言(专有名词、动词)如何反映人的行为动机和行为本身的阐释、以及Jerry Fodor的思想语言说法👇
Language must make dramatic changes in man's attention to things and persons, because it allows a transfer of information of enormous scope.
—Julian Jaynes’ the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind
The info of the verb not only organizes the nucleus of the sentence,but determines its meaning.
we have been thinking about the relationship between __data__ and NFTs @OwnershipLabs (roaming 🧵)
The data is not the result, not the final output, but the time you spend on the web and the process you interact with it, the "footprint🦶" of your attention.
It sounds a bit abstract, as if my attention 👀 is a real person with 🦶. It wanders around the web, stops at a blog, applauds in front of a JPG, goes for a video and gets high all afternoon... This series of footprints are recorded.
And here's another example
Jessie wrote an article that cited 10 NFTs, all of which were not just a JPG or video, but relationships with context, altogether they formed a network of relationships.
My life goal is to bridge tools for thoughts and the blockchain, the purpose is to make human thoughts valuable. but there is something missing between people's thoughts and the pure blockchain,I m always thinking about this, what is it?
first, let's talk about the roles of each.
tools for thoughts, with the best representation of roam, is the private deep-thinking self that conducts synthesis and makes creations. It is networked being just like your brain, everything is connected so it's not easy to filter or even share.
the blockchain, with all the beings like defi,nft stuff, is the trusted medium of exchange.The blockchain makes things more liquidate ,attributes things with timestamp so people could have ownership.
so again, what's missing between the two?
@sapinker Pinker said in [[the stuff of thought]] that a verb is a framework, not just a word to refer to an action.
I find that when I communicate with native eng speakers, sometimes you just say two words and they basically know what you want to say.
This reminds me of the natural habit of language learning (and I think it works, although most people get overly hung up on grammar): sentences are built around their verbs. (a concept here called verb construction)
Instead of studying grammar in detail, I prefer to stretch the boundaries of communication. The difference between the two is
The former favors "accuracy", while the latter emphasizes "matching". The former is for research, the latter for communication.