SUO: Re: Re: Sign Relations & Communication
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
> SR: I assume we are trying to map (as accurately as possible)
> from your mind to my mind and that the column you refer to
> as 'Interpretant' is in yours and my minds respectively.
> The column you label 'Object' is in the objective reality
> we both share ... assuming of course we both believe
> in (have faith in) such a shared objective reality.
> The sign column is the easiest ... it is just the
> strings (like this one) that we throw at each other
> in some kind of interaction such as this dialogue.
> Am I groking you correctly on these points?
>
> I wanted to pick a "real" example, one that came from the ongoing context,
> so of course I'm now stuck with a very tough natural language nut to chew.
> But I will persist as far as I can, at various point abstracting to
revelant
> levels of features and waving my hands at other details. No mind-melds
are
> allowed -- we will have to do this the way it's done on this earthly
sphere.
>
> The Interpretant role is, in principle, extremely far-ranging. It can
encompass
> everything that you put in the public Sign role, plus the whole wide world
of
> "affections and impressions of the soul" that Aristotle called
"pathemata",
> plus the vast repertory of actions and steps that one executes or performs
> in one's own particular "interpretive dance" to the music of the notes in
> the Sign domain, plus all of the redolent motives and motifs that make up
> one's "general conditional disposition to act", indeed, one's very Self.
> But it will not be possible to discuss very much of that, and what we do
> will only get treated in this context to the extent that it actually gets
> written out in words, and so it all comes round to the sort of signlike
stuff
> that might well have already been included in the Sign column in the first
place.
I agree that the Interpretant column is problematic were we to restrain our
domain of discourse to humans. However, were we to change our domain of
discourse to computers, then perhaps we can make some headway. Were we to
talk primarialy about Human<->Computer and Computer<->Computer dialogue,
would you not agree that the Interpertant column for the Computer's role can
be found by what resides in the computer's memory ?? <--- really I need a
direct answer to that question.
Now if I can impose upon you for just a moment to examine one of my
mentographs (say for example 1). Let me explain what this graph means. That
graph is just a picture drawn so that a human could understand it of what
goes in your Interpertant column should such reside inside a computer's
memory. By this I mean that every labeled arrow in the diagram translates
directly to a record contained in the computer's data base. There is
substantually no interpertation necessary from the graph to the database ...
one can write the database directly by just reading off the arrows in the
graph.
[1] http://robustai.net/mentography/AnnBobYouI.gif
Can you see that?
Seth Russell