From: M Lissack (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 29 Jan 2004 - 17:59:00 GMT
Thank you. I actually think we are beginning to
If codes or signs have an established/fixed meaning
which does not depend upon the environment into which
it is being projected or upon the interpretive history
of the user/reader then indeed transmission fidelity
has much to do with loss of meaning.
However once you acknowledge that the code or sign
being transmitted is insufficent to convey only the
one intended meaning (with environment, context, and
interpretive histories all bringing part of the
information necessary for meaning to be conveyed) then
the relationship between the fidelity of transmission
and the ability to have a given meaning reproduced
becomes very suspect. A bad transmission to the right
context could trigger a faithful reproduction of
meaning (many of us have played parlor games based on
this idea) -- a perfect transmission to the wrong
context could produce very different meanings.
The correlation is weak and the causation unclear.
E.g. usually a telegraphed s.o.s. means help but it
could mean a type of steel wool scouring pad if
transmitted to a harried husband shopping in a store.
It could be the customer's initials if sent to an
engraver. It could be a reference to Colin Powell
(Sec of State). etc
--- Keith Henson <email@example.com> wrote:
> At 06:23 AM 29/01/04 -0800, you wrote:
> >please try a little bit of sounding like an
> >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
> >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
> 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
> >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.
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 10:10:36 GMT