SUO: Re: Sign Relations & Communication
> ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
>
> Continuation Infra:
>
> JA = Jon Awbrey
> SR = Seth Russell
>
> 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?
>
> JA: 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.
>
> JA: 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.
>
> SR: 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 Interpretant 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.
>
> JA: Way too fast! [.... bla bla bla..]
> SR: 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 interpretation necessary from
> the graph to the database ... one can write the database directly
> by just reading off the arrows in the graph.
>
> SR: [1] http://robustai.net/mentography/AnnBobYouI.gif
>
> SR: Can you see that?
>
> I am heartily in favor of graphical and graph-theoretical forms of
representation,
> and I have made something of a study of it for many years, but these
graphs just
> escape me, as they seem to complicate what is simple instead of eliciting
the
> inner simplicity that may lie obscured in apparent complexity. Let's
return
> to my [... bla bla bla ]
Jon,
Communication and it's encoding in languages both natural and formal is
built from social interactions which stem from our social instinct. You
have none.
Goodbye
Seth Russell