Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I don't see much of a correlation between what you wrote and what you screencapped; distinguishing between symbol and symbolized doesn't imply that symbols are useful without a working understanding of what they reference, however thinly functional

(How? Also what I wrote was Feynman in the same bit // forgot to put quotes)

I don't care of it's Feynman, as stated it's not a reasonable claim. Maybe context would help.

Mentioned Feynman re correlation btw screen cap/quote. I do think he’s being a bit tongue&cheek, but also learning vague definitions is setting up buckets/organizing structure to contain knowledge “Knowing the names of things is useful if you want to talk to somebody else.”

"Energy makes the toy move" is just a restatement of the unsolved "x makes the toy move," and it's one that actually makes most people worse off: if they ask a friend "what is energy?" they'll get a less applicable answer than "what makes the toy move?"

“The answer is a little unfortunate, because what they were trying to do is teach a definition of what is energy. But nothing whatever is learned.” The understanding of *definition* of a a word works on the realm of communication btw people as well as the *borders* of a concept

What do you mean by "working on the realm of communication between people" and "borders of a concept" here? This is going meta lol

Definitions are for understanding consensus use of a symbol (Eg when I was a child I used the word “pervert” thinking it meant “prey” which caused lots of confusion for everyone. I had knowledge of the concepts, tho mislabeled). Can learn knowledge & definition in different order