SUO: Re: Sign Relations & Communication
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
JA = Jon Awbrey
SR = Seth Russell
<...>
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 ...]
JA: The first thing to get clear about is that the distinctive content of the
three relational domains is a secondary issue. There is no sense to look
for distinctive essences that will tell you just from looking at an item
which column it belongs to. Indeed, it is perfectly sensible to think
about a sign relation L c OxSxI which has all three sets O, S, I equal
so far as sets go, that is, with O = S = I. That is slightly unusual,
but it is very common to contemplate sign relations for which S = I,
for example, with S = I = M c A*, where M is a formal language over
an alphabet A. In such a setting one could say that a word x in M,
amounting to an element of both S and I, is "virtually" in a computer
memory, speaking in the usual loose-lisp sort of way, to mean that x
has been parsed by the duly appointed parser, has left a record of its
parsing in the form of a parse graph, or other style of data structure,
and has delivered the virtual acceptor that is virtually emulated by the
computer in question into a virtual state of the virtually accepting kind.
Ultimately, then, for the sake of maximal realism, if you like that sort of
thing, one would like to be able to replace the formally characterized sets
O, S, I with three domains that constitute the state spaces of real systems,
always, of course, at the appropriate level of abstraction -- nobody ever gets
all that real if you really wanna think about it in the strictest possible terms.
Can you tell me what was the problem here? I worked pretty hard at this last part
and thought that it was a pretty clear and direct answer to your previous question.
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤