But it is this exact these "sign" systems I'm taking about. Initially I thought you meant "symbols", but as you went on, I saw hat you wer really talking about signs. And, although I am a linguistic person, I can't see how they can play such a basic and important role in language and communication as ypu postulate in this thread with me.That is why I talk about sign systems. — JuanZu
Language is not something simply settled in memory like words and other symbols. It is much more than that. It is a system of communication, which in turn is a process of exchanging information, and as such it is live, even if written on paper, displayed on a monitor, etc. in the form of words and other symbols. Because this text when read becomes "live" in our mind and creates thoughts, i.e. the reverse process occurs of how the text is [Thus, taking the example of a book (a book-dictionary), the written marks enter into a relationship with our language sedimented in our memory. — JuanZu
I wonder what mess would have been created if he was taking that alo into consideration! :grin:Wittgenstein's theory would ignore the book as an active agent and give primacy to the subject as the producer of meaning as he uses his learned language. — JuanZu
Exactly.there is a reason why there are no emoji-type expressions, casual expressions and so on. The reason is that there is the intention of objectivity, of the concept and of the universal. — JuanZu
That's much better. At least now I know what you mean by sign systems and I can trurn to these guys and the theory of (the) sign or theory of signs (I just saw that there are some variation of the term.)I also wanted to point out that according to the theory of the sign that I work on (which refers to the texts of Peirce, Derrida, Saussure among others) it is always, in a certain sense, universalizing — JuanZu
I never said to stick to common dictionaries as far as philosophy is concerned. Although, good disctionaties include specialized definitions of terms when terms have special meaning and usage in philosophy. (They use for that indications such as "In philosophy:", (philos.), etc.) Those who are using dictionaries on a regular basis know that well.you need to go beyond common usage. Common usage might have the effect of ingraining false beliefs into our thinking that we don't realize. — Mark Nyquist
(The sign language you are talking about is a special form of language that uses visual-manual modality to convey meaning, instead of spoken words (and other symbols contained in written language.) — Alkis Piskas
I wonder what mess would have been created if he was taking that alo into consideration! :grin: — Alkis Piskas
So, a Wittgensteinian, eh? — Alkis Piskas
I have not explored the "theory of signs" yet in order to assimilate this ...I would just like to clarify that a system of signs is not necessarily a living system of signs [this would be demonstrated by computation]. — JuanZu
Exactly. There's no information anywhere, until someone decodes (translates, interprets) the words or symbols (or signs, in your case) and gets the meaning they convey. Because even just decoding is not enough. These symbols --either by themselves( isolated) or in combination (as a group, structure)-- have to create a meaning in the mind in order that they can be considered information (knowledge).As for "exchanging information" I have always wondered what is being exchanged. That is, continuing with the example of this forum, you see these marks on a screen, they are pixels. Where is the information and meaning of these marks? I can use a magnifying glass or a microscope to examine these pixels and probably won't find anything like meaning. It is because of this problem that I speak of meaning as an effect of an effective and active relationship between signs — JuanZu
Exactly.I can use a magnifying glass or a microscope to examine these pixels and probably won't find anything like meaning. It is because of this problem that I speak of meaning as an effect of an effective and active relationship between signs. — JuanZu
I think you are speaking about different moments in time, two different events. My reading of your message happens in a different period of time and location. Once you have sent the message, your part (encoding) is completed. When I receive your message and start reading it, a decoding process takes place.It follows that nothing is exchanged, but is constantly produced as something new. Right now, when you read this, you are creating meaning as an effect of "my" words. But I am certainly not sending you anything, I am simply provoking something in you in a technologically mediated relationship. This is very counterintuitive. — JuanZu
Yes, I can undestand all this now.When I talk about sign systems I do so in a more or less formal sense. There are written, spoken, thought, machined and many more types of systems in nature. — JuanZu
:grin:Given Wittgenstein's character, I prefer not to think about what he would answer. It makes me anxious. — JuanZu
Agree.Philosophy is not like football. Although some folk treat it that way. it's not about teams. — Banno
Now, again, one could disagree and say, e.g. "But JuanZu has communated something to you, independently of whether you receive it, read it, reply to it, etc.". And again, yes, but only loosely speaking. No communication (exchange) can take place until the other part replies to the message, in whatever form, time and place. Even with just an "OK" or a symbol, like an emoji. And even without actually reading and obtaining the conveyed information. Well, this would not be of course the best one could expect from a communication, but it would still be a communication. There would be an exchange of information. — Alkis Piskas
Certainly.When we talk about exchange we talk about something that passes from one side to the other while being the same. Like money, or a commodity. However, that does not happen with meaning and information. — JuanZu
Exactly. They acquire a meaning only when they are processed by the mind, i.e. decoded and undestood,If I talk to you, no matter how much you respond to me, your words (like sounds, sound waves) do not contain any meaning that travels through the air with them. — JuanZu
This reminds me somehow of the incremental search used by the search engines! :grin:In each moment the meaning is created as something new (that is why there can always be error in interpretation, a "wrong" meaning because it is always new). — JuanZu
Can't get this.If you ask me something and I answer you, my answer in terms of exchange is as "empty" as your question. You may reply to me "but then there is no communication." — JuanZu
Well, I find all this a little too complicated. And why you keep rescticting communucation in oral form?normally when I hear your words – whether in the form of a question or in the form of an answer – I imagine that I am thinking the same thing as you but duplicated. — JuanZu
Can't get this either. Sorry. Affectation implies pretense and/or conspicuousness. How does this enter in a simple, straightforward communication? In commmunication in its general sense, as it is commonly and widely used?Communication in this case is a mutual affectation where multiple meanings are created, but nothing is exchanged. — JuanZu
However, the message, the information is not complete and until the sender completes it. (Indeed, a frustrated "Let me finish, please" may come in if the listener interrupts the speaker.) — Alkis Piskas
If you ask me something and I answer you, my answer in terms of exchange is as "empty" as your question. You may reply to me "but then there is no communication."
— JuanZu
Can't get this — Alkis Piskas
Well, I find all this a little too complicated. And why you keep rescticting communucation in oral form? — Alkis Piskas
Can't get this either. Sorry. Affectation implies pretense and/or conspicuousness. How does this enter in a simple, straightforward communication? In commmunication in its general sense, as it is commonly and widely used? — Alkis Piskas
I'm always open to and interested in new or different ideas. — Alkis Piskas
So be it....the reference has nothing to do with consciousness — Alkis Piskas
Yes, maybe we do.I think we both mean the same thing when you talk about a complete message — JuanZu
You are a mysterious and obscure person, Banno. — Alkis Piskas
Where is the information and meaning of these marks? I can use a magnifying glass or a microscope to examine these pixels and probably won't find anything like meaning. It is because of this problem that I speak of meaning as an effect of an effective and active relationship between signs. It follows that nothing is exchanged, but is constantly produced as something new. Right now, when you read this, you are creating meaning as an effect of "my" words. But I am certainly not sending you anything, I am simply provoking something in you in a technologically mediated relationship. This is very counterintuitive. — JuanZu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.