On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Alex Williams <thantos@decatl.alf.dec.com> wrote:
>> As far as I can see we can recursively break all communication down to
>> these three steps;
>>
>> 1. Something I want to express is converted [1] into a set of symbols
>> that I think will convey my meaning.
>>
>> 2. These symbols are placed onto some physical medium where the intended
>> recipient(s) can access them.
>>
>> 3. The symbols are converted [2] by you into something meaningful.
>
>Can't argue with any of this at all, its unassailable, since I agree
>with it. :) Well, except for the `intentionality' of step 1 and the
>wording of step 2.
<snipped specifics>
By 'want to' (in step 1) I meant also to include subconscious desires,
such as would influence body language etc. so we agree here.
The 'physical medium' includes anything from a stream of photons through
copper wire to telepathy (if such exists). No restrictions inherent,
although I take your point re: the suggestion of it.
>Let's distinguish the protocol (English, body lnguage) from the media
>(email, my flesh).
The three steps form exactly that separation. Step 2 is concerned with
the media alone, the protocols are involved in the
creation/deconstruction of the symbols at either end.
>> languages are very imprecise. Ambiguosity abounds in the english
>> language so to avoid errors we must try to avoid these ambiguosities, an
>> impossible task. We have designed formal languages which can express a
>
>Note that these same ambiguities allow us to convey ambiguous ideas,
>which may represent our intent in the first place.
See note [4]
>They also serve as
>handy `placeholders' for less important ideas that would take
>resources we don't want to waste in expanding them.
That's true. I don't suggest we should remove ambiguosity from our
communication toolbox, instead supplement it (note [4] again).
>> the cost of error prevention outweigh the value - how much data
>> redundancy can you afford to build in? Finally, we build our
>
>Additionally, what is the importance of your communication? Quick
>chat with a friend or stopping war with the prime minister of the UK?
Exactly what I meant by value. Against this we measure the effort to put
in. If someone doesn't understand do you take a couple of hours to
familiarise them with your personal operating system or do you just say
'Ah, forget it. You had to be there.'?
>> Step 3 has a similar set of problems to step 1.
>
>Plus the added burden of an interpreter that's not written to the
>exact same spec of the originator.
That's the 'internal map' problem from step 1 except in the opposite
direction; symbol-to-understanding instead of understanding-to-symbol.
>> [1] I've used the word 'converted' very deliberately here as recent
>> thoughts (see my question re: wildfire mutation rates in a closed
>> memetic environment on another thread) have led me to believe that there
>> is some sort of a feedback loop involved in this process such that just
>> as our mental structures create the symbols of expression (imperfectly),
>> so do the symbols we use affect the structures which created them. I'm
>> still fermenting this one so all ideas gratefully received.
>
>Its much like a learning NNet in continuous flux; creating a pattern
>its rewarded for reinforces that pattern, which makes it more likely
>to emerge and things /like/ it to emerge.
Ultimately even supplanting the original version.
>> [4] It could be argued that the full range *requires* that the
>> imperfections be present, but it would be nice to have the choice of
>> whether to use formal or informal symbols as appropriate.
>
>We do, that's why we developed legalese, math and computer languages.
That's true, but not many people (myself included) are sufficiently well
practised in the use of formal language to apply it as naturally and
effortlessly as we would for informal. For that reason it's not often
appropriate to use it even if you *do* want precision. Will the intended
recipient understand?
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.