More on the development of ideas, vocabulary etc.

   Thus we have seen, at least in part, how the "and" and the "or" work together in the formation of language and conceptualization of ideas.  But this, of course, is but a very thin slice of the picture.  Words, numbers, etc., at least in the abstract, don't exist "out there" in the same sense that this keyboard that I am currently tapping exists.  Plato and many of his successors proposed the existence of an immaterial world of ideas.  It is difficult to think of something "existing", unless it is "out there" and thus is material.  But if we concede that an immaterial world is possible, we can see the "and" functioning when a word is spoken, a number is written or a thought is thought.  For, assuming such a world exists, the "and" links a portion of this immaterial world to the users brain when the speaking, writing or thinking is taking place.  It is impossible, or nearly impossible, to debunk the existence of an immaterial world, for it is impossible to destroy something that can't be seen or touched. Many great philosophers have attempted to eviscerate this theory without success.
  What is possibly more effective is to propose an alternative or to just run with other thoughts without dealing with the validity of the theory of forms.   Without reaching whether ideas, words, numbers etc. objectively exist out there,  we have seen from the last post how the "and" and the "or" play a role in idea formation.  For all language, concepts etc. are taught.  All, or at least 98% of them are learned. (We won't deal for now with the remaining 2%)   And to be taught or learned, social connections are necessary.  We can only learn ideas, words etc. from other people.  An autistic person learns relatively little because of his or her difficulty in forming social connections.  Thus, the "and" or the social "and" is a prerequisite for the formation of ideas, the learning of language and all learning.   One person is able to communicate to another what that other people should be seeing or learning.  If we combine this idea with that set forth in our last post, one person helps the other person map the word "chair" to a number of different chairs, until that person, through the use of the "or", is able to separate the idea of "chair" from, say, the idea of "table".   It goes without saying that for one person to be able to communicate these ideas to another person, their brains, i.e. human brains, must be remarkably similar.   This similarity in brain structure probably explains why two persons' idea of the concept "chair" are essentially the same more accurately  than the idea of each person, through the "and", participating in the same nonmaterial world of ideas, in which each speaker, at the moment of utterance, links to the same idea of the word "chair".