# Re: Objective Meaning Must Exhibit Isomorphism

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@rawbw.com)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2008 - 23:24:53 MST

Krekoski writes

> > 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?

> Well the most general example I can think of is usage of signal as foreground,
> noise as background, regardless of the contingencies of message modality,
> or what specifically constitutes signal. if we go back to the fibonacci example...
>
> qwe*gta*rfe**yqw***qdw*****plo********lmo etc.
>
> as opposed to
>
> 1,1,2,3,5,8,...

> There are two isomorphisms here. There is firstly, the obvious one, an isomorphism
> between both signals as well as an actual mathematical fibonacci sequence.

I understand that one. That was, of course, what I mean by "isomorphic meaning"
(as opposed to "conventional meaning", or meaning by convention).

> In addition however, a second isomorphism, the usage of signal on the
> one hand ( a '*' in our first example, a digit in our second) as foreground,
> or message carrier, [on the one hand]
> and the usage of some kind of filler 'noise' to separate units within the
> signal, could also be construed as isomorphic with the notion of communication,
> [on the other]

That seems pretty complicated to me, sorry.

> which is a natural byproduct of intelligence. (and, in fact, isomorphic with the
> process of reasoning as well, since our own thoughts have signal as well as noise).
>
> Am I clear here? process of communication, as well as any arbitrary instantiation
> of communication is isomorphic with other intelligent activities.

"A process of communication is isomorphic with other intelligent activities"?
Well, such an isomorphism seems pretty deep to me, not at all obvious or
clear.

Regards,
Lee

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT