Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!usfvax2!pdn!alan
From: alan@pdn.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The nature of knowledge
Message-ID: <1312@pdn.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 12-Sep-87 15:40:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: pdn.1312
Posted: Sat Sep 12 15:40:41 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Sep-87 01:41:23 EDT
References: <58@thirdi.UUCP> <2401@ihlpl.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy)
Distribution: world
Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida
Lines: 46
Keywords: truth knowledge belief absolutes certainty

In article <164@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
/I think some forms of non-verbal expression *can* be intended as assertions.
/A portrait, for instance, is (or used to be) intended as an assertion about how
/someone looks, and (if badly done) can be "false".  "Social action" art also
/makes assertions (as does art in commercials).  These forms of art or
/non-verbal expressions can be mendacious.

/However, there are other forms of messages -- what you might be referring to as
/"great art", or, one might say, "Fine Arts" (as opposed to commercial art),
/that do not make assertions.  These works of art, it seems to me, are attempts
/to evoke a feeling or experience in the audience.  They could be regarded as
/"successful" or "unsuccessful", in this respect, but not as "true" or "false".

/So, there are the following categories of messages:

/1.  Those that make statements.
/2.  Those that try to evoke specific experiences.
/3.  Those that stimulate and act as "inkblots" for the imagination of the
/    audience.
/
/Of these three forms of messages, only the first has truth value or (therefore)
/mendaciousness.

A painting of some actual event or object "represents" something because
of its resemblance to something else.  This resemblance is totally in
the eye of the beholder, however.  Even among human beings, there are
those who would not perceive a drawing as anything but lines and or
colors on paper.  What an animal or an alien from Arcturas would
perceive when viewing the Mona Lisa is questionable.   

The point is this: just because I paint a picture of Gary Hart caught in the
act of adultery, this does not mean that he ever was (or will be) unfaithfull
to his wife.  The picture I paint has NO causal relationship with the
objects/events I or anyone else may see in it.  Did the lady in
DaVinci's famous picture ever actually exist?  Even a photograph or a
video tape can show that which does not exist or did not happen.

Information can be stored and/or transmitted in way that does not use
"signs" and which can not be mistaken.  Photons that have bounced off
or come through matter carry guaranteed true facts about that matter.
Such information carriers are called "tokens", to distinguish them  from
"signs", which can be mendacious. If you send me a message using tokens,
I can believe it.  If you use signs, I'll have to take you on faith.
Of course, It's very hard to communicate usefully without using signs.

--alan@pdn