[1]
Ernst von Glasersfeld raises some questions about my definition of "concept". I know that my definition differs from the usual ones. The reason for me to choose it was that I wanted a term which (a) is suitable for the discussion of concept-dynamics, and (b) distinguishes between animals and humans. (A question : would you say that animals use concepts ? In what sense ? Starting at what level ? They probably use recognition matrices, in the sense you mention.)

[2]
It is of course true that one can visualize a pyramid without remembering its name or the word tetrahedron. This happens a lot even for simple situations, where a color, a smell, or a face, are recalled or recognized, but not the appropriate word (eg, "mauve", or the person's name). And most concepts do not change much from one language or dialect to another. And also, words are not identical with concepts, many words can have the same content, and one word can mean different items.

[3]
But still, words have become important components of human concepts. In particular, the word-meanings contribute much to concept-dynamics (such as always for transcendence, or encompassment). This is even more so in case words are thought to be of central importance (as in "in the beginning was the word").

The question for me then becomes what to call a mental-structure-plus-word-label unit. An acronym like MSPW is not practical. Perhaps "word-concept", or "concept+" is useful, it would not complicate communication too much. How does this sound?

-----------------------

Herbert FJ Muller

e-mail <hmller@po-box.mcgill.ca>