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 primarily 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.
Well I suppose it is an answer of sorts .... the discourse meaning of which
parses in my mind to be:
Yes. But the question is irrelevant to my (Jon's) way of thinking.
Ok, if that be it, then fine. Perhaps, then, could we peruse your way of
thinking in another train? (... and I would, ok ok ?) But, Jon, in this
train, whether the Interpertant column can be exactly represented in a
computer's database memory *is* of paramount importance. What is important
to this train is not that an object, x, is somehow a member of each of the
three ideal sets {O, S, I}and hence that the sets can be somehow dealt with
equivalently, but rather what relationships *can be* reasonably depicted in
the three different domains of this ~new~ sign relationship which I am
proposing. The ~newness~ coming exclusively from the idea that we are
considering the Interpertant column to be (and only be) that which we can be
effectively put in a computer's database and control its behavior.
Now, would that be at least palatable to you way of thinking, you might then
reexamine my mentograph [1] in a different light and notice: not only the
fact that the three domains in question must needs look quite different, but
also that the relationships between the objects in the three domains can (at
a meta level outside of those domains) be quite mathematically depicted.
What is striking is that two of the domains (O and S of which you and Tarski
obsess ... quite understandably so because of the one dimensional
serializations to which semantics in the 20th century were restrained) do
look very much alike .... yet the Interpertant domain (which you had
initially suggested we ignore) is where all the distinctive content
actually does resides.
[1] http://robustai.net/mentography/intensionExtension.gif
In other words, ~cats~ are just a figment of the computer's imagination,
we'll never find ~cats~ in reality. So if we want to talk about ~cats~, we
had better look into the computer's imagination.
See I must admit that I have an agenda here too ... hopefully such personal
agendas are allowable when opening these sign inter-coms. So, just as
hopefully, you will recognize that were my agenda to be swept away as
unimportant, then I am not likely to hang in there on my end of the line.
Seth Russell