Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!rochester!cornell!batcomputer!pyramid!thirdi!sarge From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: The nature of communication Message-ID: <220@thirdi.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: thirdi.220 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Oct-87 09:16:09 EDT References: <2353@mmintl.UUCP> <164@thirdi.UUCP> <2374@mmintl.UUCP> <3997@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2392@mmintl.UUCP> <4037@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <17963@aero.ARPA> Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Distribution: world Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology Lines: 54 Keywords: communication symbols messages In article <17963@aero.ARPA> crummer@aero.UUCP (Dr. C. A. Crummer (Charlie)) writes: >How about this for a definition? A symbol, in addition to being a thing in >itself, is a *pointer*. As a pointer it points, or evokes in the one >perceiving the symbol. A symbol is a pointer only because the one >perceiving it defines it to be one. A person from an aboriginal >civilization might see a photograph and just eat it. For him it may >signify or symbolize nothing. That sounds very reasonable. Are there any constrictions on what a symbol can point to? It seems to me that some symbols point to concepts, others to objects, others (like a swatch of cloth) to themselves. >Communication apparently depends on a >community of agreement as to the meaning of symbols. As was pointed out, >the photon that has interacted with matter in a certain way might be >interpreted by a physicist as a token or signal, which is just a certain >kind of symbol. The physicist may understand enough about the physical >world to know that a photon generated in this way can be seen as a signal >from the world and as such can not be mendacious. I agree totally about the community of agreement. The idea of a physical phenemanon as a signal from the world is intriguing also. I believe it was Berkeley (I believe) who viewed the physical universe as a communication from God. Thus, for him, all perceived physical events were *symbols*, and we could understand them as communications. Plato had a similar concept, with his Ideas that exist above the plane of physical existence, which Ideas are conveyed, or "pointed to" by physical events. Thus in Plato's case, the communication was from the higher plane of ideas (in God's mind) and in Berkeley's, directly from God, who, helpfully, gave us a universe of discourse. We can rely on such communication, because God (in whatever form) does not lie. Descartes based his reconstruction of the universe, after his reduction to "I am", on the non-mendacity of God, also. What I find intriguing is the similarity between this notion and the notion of there being an "absolute objective reality out there". In both cases, the phenomena we see are from something and pointers to or indicators of, that thing. In the Platonic and Berklean case, that reality is God or God's thought. In the materialist case, the phenomena are a "communication from": and "pointers to" an absolute material reality. In both cases, the more accurately we can decode this "communication" the closer we are to the "truth". It seems, therefore, to be only a short step from pantheism to utter materialism, a fact that neither the one nor the other might relish. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge