From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@rawbw.com)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2008 - 21:22:58 MST
Krekoski writes
> Here is where I think one point is important to make however,
> that no communication is completely devoid of contextual cues.
> Your ACJXM TBBCP EHYSK QNLRZ may seem opaque
> without reading your translation, but that's because it was
> embedded in communication that utilized a marginally different
> code (english) to convey meaning, and the code (your code)
> itself conveyed message in a more meta-pragmatic way than
> the email itself did. Rather than have internal meaning, the
> meaning you intended to convey was through the *existence*
> of the message itself-- namely, that specific codes can exist.
I think that I agree. "No communication is completely devoid of
contextual clues." I can't think of a counter-example. If one
alien senses another's presence somewhere in the galaxy and
throws up a big detailed map of the galaxy with an arbitrary portion
clearly differentiated, then among evolved species struggling to
prevail, the meaning is pretty clear. But still---as you suggest---
that map's main communication between the two depends on
their potential contest for the real estate (the context). The
conventional part of the meaning (the isomorphism to the galaxy)
does not, however, depend on convention, but relies on isomorphism.
> If we move to a code we do not all immediately have a grasp
> of however, context is information since less is understood from
> the outset. I can infer a fairly large amount of information from
> your code even without your translation.
True. "A few examples: it is produced by a person.... likely... speaks English... "
yes.
> Its existence communicates some type of information regarding the
> opacity or transparency of specific codes of communication.
I'm not sure what you mean.
> At any rate the distinction becomes less clear. But it would also make
> sense to talk about isomorphisms of context, in addition to
> isomorphisms of signal.
Example?
Regards,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT