Language works when we think the same, connecting the words to the same meanings and such. But that never actually happens 100%. It might be closer to 80%. (or if it’s a strange subject, 15%)
So this “conversation” that we’re having here is, to some degree, not actually happening.
But we pretend that it is.
So how much are we pretending? How much of the conversation is hallucinatory conversation?
A rule referred to as Zipf’s Law is the foundation of all communication. Anything that corresponds to anything follows it. Knowing it can allow someone to mark something’s significance. It’s how archaeologists can determine lost truths with absolutely nothing to go by. Once the basics are understood, then each thing that imperfectly corresponds to something else is compared with other things with the same meaning. You could compare this to triangulation. From there, the rest can be achieved.
How does it overcome the threat of achieving merely a logically consistent fantasy? (A chinese room situation)