You, me, and extensionality (Updated)

I really fucked up the last thread but I wanna try to get this through so I can in turn learn a little bit more about this subject. I always seem to be getting in the way of what I want to accomplish. Anyways, here's what I have to say.


Consider:

I am me.
I am part of you,
extensionally, am I not?
My intension is not you
My extension is me.

Let me explain the best I can. A linguistic sign, such as a word, has a signifier (its sequence of letters and phonic components). The extension of a signifier would be all the instances of that signifier that has ever existed (the extension of computer would be all computers that have or ever will exist). In other words, the extension is a set, like in mathematics.

Let us use the word you as an example. You is a specific sequence of letters that has specific phonic components. The extension of you applies to all instances of someone else, I think. If that were true, then I would be considered someone else by others so therefore would be an extension of you. The intension of a signifier would be the concept that the sign evokes. Therefore, the intension of you would be not me.

I pose this question: Does anyone know if I have misunderstood these concepts or have applied them inappropriately and am most certainly not an extension of you, or if I haven't done so, do you think I would be considered an extension of you? Do you know of a better way to clarify an extension of you?

 

Without intension, words have no meaning. Since intension links the extension of a word to that word, without intension words would have no property to apply to the set the word refers to. These words are simply semantic philosophies dubbed over linguistics concepts formed by Ferdinand de Saussure. So, in a sense yes, extensionallity is just a thought experiment, but that doesn't help me solve my question.

If I am twisting words around, I am truly not trying to. If you understand this stuff better than I seem to, then please help me get the words untwisted.

 

I guess my question is: can I, as an intensional or extensional object, be within the extension of the word you?

 

what are defining me as? if your defining me as simply another person then yes obviously
'

 

I mean me as in the extension and intension of myself. Moreover, I mean you as in the extension of the word you.

Elaborate, if you don't mind.

 

doesn't there have to be a basis behind the definition of whatever extension and intension is? because you haven't given me one, so i don't have any possible way to answer your question

but you probably know more about it then me, i only just looked it up
'

 

According to Ferdinand de Saussure, there are three concepts that give words meaning in linguistics: the signifier, the signified, and the reverent. A word is synonymous with the signifier, intension is analogous to the signified, and extension is the reverent. A quick reading of these three concepts would do them better justice than me trying to explain them, I am sure.

 

I will try to use a bit of math to get my idea across. Like I no doubt poorly said, the extensionality of an object can be thought of as all the components that make up a set in mathematics. I'll explain:

Set 1:
[1,2,3,4]

The extensionality of Set 1 would be 1,2,3, and 4. This would be describing the set extentionally, i.e., using all instances of the set to describe the set.

An intensional set would then be a set that suggests all of its instances:

Set 2:
{x : x is an integer 1-4}

This set here seems to imply the instances that are contained within the set by giving properties to all and only the instances contained within the set. This would be a set that is described intensionally.

Moreover, Set 1 and Set 2 seem to have the same instances (1,2,3, and 4). All of these instances that make up the sets, the sets' extensionalities, seems to be equivalent, therefore these sets are extensionally equivalent. However, the conceptual constructs of the sets, the sets' intensionalities, are different, i.e., they get the same numbers using different logic. This would imply that they are intensionally distinct.

Here lies the heart of my argument, I am extensionally part of you because extensionally, you would be the set of everybody who has ever been a you at some point. This would include me as well, I think. I think it is worth mentioning that you are being a you right now. However, intensionally, we are different because an intension of you is 'not me.'

 

I am sorry if what I am saying doesn't really make sense or is incorrect or is a misinterpretation. I am trying to learn about this stuff myself. I am not sure why I am so fascinated by this subject, maybe it's because it just keeps blowing my mind the more I think about it. I became interested with the subject because of the song Intension by Tool. I posted my take of the song in the official lyrical interpretations thread if you are curious. I would love for some body to help me bounce ideas and try to understand this subject a little bit better.