From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 15:38:48 GMT
At 06:23 AM 29/01/04 -0800, you wrote:
>Keith
>
>please try a little bit of sounding like an academic
>or a scientist
Why should I? I am neither. I am a free speech advocate influenced by
Robert Heinlein's libertarian viewpoint and an engineer who appreciates
science. I have done a bit of popularizing of parts of it, but my main
contributions (the observations in Sex Drugs and Cults) are on the level of
a guy who fell in a cesspool and is reporting that shit stinks.
>you believe or are of the opinion that the statement
>is correct
>
>the attribution is the pdf Danny asked us to read
Thanks. It wasn't clear.
>copying fidelity has NOTHING to do with meaning
>transmission
We truly speak different languages. Because in *engineering* language if
the copying fidelity of a transmission path gets too bad no meaning gets
through at all. Someone could be telling me I won the lotto, but if all I
hear on my cell phone is _SCRAWWWK_ the meaning failed in transmission
because of poor fidelity.
>if it did then signs could always be mapped in a
>functional way to meaning -- as any semiotician would
>tell you -- it just ain't so
I have no idea how this statement connects with copying fidelity. Perhaps
this exchange itself is an example that "signs [can't be] mapped in a
functional way to meaning," at least not across this discipline gap. It
demonstrates the utter divergence of sign (word) meaning between social
science and engineering.
Keith Henson
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 16:18:41 GMT