Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge
Message-ID: <2353@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Sep-87 01:22:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.2353
Posted: Tue Sep  8 01:22:03 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Sep-87 00:39:30 EDT
References: <58@thirdi.UUCP> <2401@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT.
Lines: 20
Keywords: truth knowledge belief absolutes certainty

In article <127@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
|In article <1161@pdn.UUCP> alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) writes:
||One of the more interesting results of semiotics is that in order for
||something to serve as a "sign", it must be possible for the "sign" to
||be in error.
|
|Some messages, such as recitations of poetry, paintings, and the like, as well
|as various aspects of body language, songs, and the like can't really be
|mistaken or true.  Such messages are meant to convey a certain experience
|(i.e. a mental picture or sensation or sense of experiencing something) to the
|receiver (sometimes the exact experience is not specified by the originator).

But suppose the sender is *not* having the sensation suggested by the
message?  I think even in the case of a mental picture it is possible to
"fake it", to deliberately convey a picture one does not have; although the
greater the art, the less believable this is.
-- 

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108