From: Keith Henson (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 15:38:48 GMT
At 06:23 AM 29/01/04 -0800, you wrote:
>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
>the attribution is the pdf Danny asked us to read
Thanks. It wasn't clear.
>copying fidelity has NOTHING to do with meaning
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 16:18:41 GMT