From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 08 2005 - 14:25:00 GMT
My only contribution to this thread was to slap Ham down for being
dismissive and ignorant of Cybernetics, but I see "what Ian thinks"
being quoted in several places.
(1) I don't see language as resticted to humans, but I do see it as
developing with communication and intelligence / intellect. (And here
I'm talking symbolic language, not just communication per se, ie where
the thing communicated, or held in mind, represents more than itself)
I can't for the life of me remember the point of this thread, but I
think the key difference with Scott is the idea of semantics without
an interpretant. I have trouble with that, but I don't say the
interpretant has to be human.
Carry on chaps.
As for Barfield being weird. What's wrong with weird ?
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 17:13:55 GMT