This is captivating to me to think about, of course something like the word lamb doesnt feel or is just the like word. But is that not the point of meaning, nothing in a grander context may have the meaning unless we apply it to it. I mean who's to say the word white doesn't have relation to its content when we the one that gives it its very definition. I do get it though our terms we societally follow like white often don't have an relation to what they are, but it is interesting to think about when meaning and what we give meaning to is so vast in it of itself. I wonder what words have relation to their original content in what they are?

The diction Richard Gregory describes in this passage is almost robotic in nature. We see a lot of times in cognitive science and psychology the way our brain computes and structures itself almost in algorithmic ways and even the way we are "programmed" to believe certain beliefs or aspects about ourselves from our parents. I though this statement was notable because its reminder of how the overlap between computer and the way our brains function, we are constantly adapting. and the way we process and perceive is almost systematic, computational in a way. Its captivating and helps us understand that the way we perceive things and ourselves is constantly adapting and can be changed at any moment, now is not forever.

I wonder that since symbols are given meaning by our own interpretation and societal meanings, this statement exempts how we apply meaning to everything and that nothing that is outside of our awareness has meaning. Even something as simple as what we can describe a circular mug shaped object can be understood and meant to hold liquids by our own definition. It's just a reminder that we apply meaning and give it to anything no matter how small or big it is, and how what we give meaning to is forever changing because of how we are brand new in every moment.