What is stated also creates the same problems which the statement proposes to resolve: meaning of terms. What do the terms 'cognition' or 'perception' mean?
The concept of 'meaning' is central to the problem being articulated.
In Indian tradition, the concept is explained by a phenomenon called sphoTa, 'a bursting forth'. The very sequences of words used in communication through English are a result of this phenomenon, this sphoTa.
SphoTa can be explained as creation of a symbolic form, the way Mathematics deals with phenomena using symbolic forms. Language, spoken or writing using symbolic forms as alphabets or syllables are also products of sphoTa as I have realized (or, experienced) trying to understand the cipher of Meluhha or Indus writing for ordering information on trade transactions along the Tin Road.
Let us take the example of two dots ..
By denoting the symbolic forms of two dots, we have created a process of 'ordering' which is replicated in nature, say, in the way a flower is formed with petals, sometimes using a fibonacci series: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ... The next number is found by adding up the two numbers ...
Perhaps, this ability for ordering is what constitutes consciousness or 'cognition'.
Can a chimpanzee count?
I suppose Mathematics deals with the 'ordering' and ends up using symbolic forms to explain phenomena. There is 'cognition' involved in identifying or explaining the 'meaning' of the relationships expressed. Expressing relationships is 'ordering'.
As we try to understand phenomena, we end up with sphoTa, bursting forth with more symbolic forms which instead of simplifying the terms, end up creating monstrosities of meaning, confounding the process of understanding the 'order' which is inherent in the cosmos and in almost all physical or chemical or nonphysical or nonchemical phenomena.
In this perspective, Mathematics may be explained as the suffering caused by 'ordering' which is explained in the Indian tradition by the word, dharma which is also simply the 'ordering' both in the cosmos and in consciousness of an aatman.
Is it possible to evolve a universal language which expresses the private languages of individual aatman? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think cognitive sciences have the tools to resolve this universal language idea. Maybe, every language is conditioned by the environment, or, experiences sequenced or pictured as an 'ordering' like the petals of a flower. So, we end up using Mathematical symbolic forms to explain the symbolic form of sphoTa, the bursting forth.
S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Centre