Semiotics - Introduction

To view topics that deserve special attention . . .
. . . enter here . . .
User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Semiotics - Introduction

Post by encode_decode » Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:52 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:47 pm
You have made an excellent post. I think it is worth me putting a day or two thought into providing an answer.

:D
- Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

User avatar
encode_decode
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

Re: Semiotics - Introduction

Post by encode_decode » Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:57 pm

    Anomaly654

    My apologies for getting back to this so late - I have been in hospital for a few days - I am still not quite with it so I will make this post now and see what you think. We can change, refine and improve things as we go if need be. Thanks for your patience.

    A little side track: A lot of the philosophy that you and I have engaged in, is reductionist in its approach - for that, we tend to focus on individual aspects rather than the bigger picture and not only do we do that, but we utilize the same reductionist principle to try and explain away things that would lose their full substance by being reduced too much. We can only reduce so much - we can say that the universe is made of one substance but we can not really say that the actions of the substance is one thing as that loses meaning among the many complex interactions that happen with in the universe, so we end up with the word interaction which implies that there is more than one thing(more than one substance).

    The real question in the above is how to define thing or substance. This I believe is a matter of convenience and lends credence to the concept of the LoA.
    Anomaly654 wrote:
    Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:47 pm
    I thought I’d already posted this, but apparently not.
    It is possible that you did, sometimes I have to sidetrack to get at the subtleties of a situation.
    Anomaly654 wrote:
    Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:47 pm
    Can you please elaborate: what sorts of “features of potential meanings” are added to a symbol to develop its full meaning?
    You know, when I first read this question I was taken aback(i.e. startled) and it led me to wonder, just how much thought I have put into this question myself - in the context that you have presented the answer turned out to be none or at the very least, very, very little.

    So this is going to be a little adventure for me and I welcome your criticism - I am also open to offering different examples to get any point across.

    Let us approach this from the perspective of neurons(more specifically, networks of neurons). This is only going to be an analogy. Neurons can be said to form networks with other neurons. The brain is one big network analogous to the internet. Inside this one big network is many different smaller networks that form together to make the one big network(again analogous to the internet). Lets not focus on the one big network but rather the many smaller networks.

    Initially, we can say that related to language or meaning there are no networks formed(because we are babies). Overtime symbols(words and pictures) are formed. After hearing a word enough times we recognize it. After seeing something enough times we recognize it. The same can be said for hearing something. It is a small network of neurons that symbolize or signify any one of these things. We of course learn to create symbols.

    You asked: What sorts of “features of potential meanings” are added to a symbol to develop its full meaning? Given that all of these networks are connected into one big network we are able to form associations between the smaller networks. When a symbol begins to be, a new network is formed for that symbol as a part of the larger network that contains millions of symbols, and the other smaller networks each signifying symbols try to talk to the new network(you could say that neural networks are social) and add features to the new symbol - I believe the new network readily accepts these suggestions from the other networks and temporarily treats them as “features of potential meanings”. HL1 and HL2 settle on the most accurate features to form a new symbol or meaning(sometimes similar to other meanings, sometimes similar to other symbols).

    There are many subtle differences going on inside our brain at any given time and I think that this is a big contributor to why we are so smart.

    I offered this example as I found application to be the best approach this time around to explain what is in my head.
    Anomaly654 wrote:
    Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:47 pm
    Pre-conceived meaning as past relations accumulated over time seems right. I’m guessing this is what the author in Introduction to Information was getting at in saying we impose meaning we already have. I misunderstood him to be suggesting we actually impose a new meaning onto a thing...which in retrospect is incoherent and not in line with the logical approach used throughout that chapter. My bad. (Was this the missing piece of the puzzle you mentioned?)
    I strongly agree with: Pre-conceived meaning as past relations accumulated over time seems right. I also suggest that many past relations are taken into account subconsciously before the conscious arrives at, at least one relation to form a new meaning. I suggest that all past relations affect the new outcome.

    "we actually impose a new meaning onto a thing" << if you think deep enough about this then it turns out to be actually true - what is the old saying about never stepping in the same place twice?
    Anomaly654 wrote:
    Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:47 pm
    Does your model incorporate or take into account attitudes and motivations? Value? Or is this jumping the gun a bit?
    My model as of this date is not fully developed but it was suggested to me many months ago that motivation should play a role in when considering bounded rationality - which complicates things a little.
    Anomaly654 wrote:
    Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:47 pm
    NOTE: We are dealing with three different philosophies now - that of my own, the philosophy of information and semiotics each having parallels to each other. When we move on to the second part of your post we will be dealing with a fourth philosophy, that of your own.
    I want to keep mine in check for now while I learn more about Semiotics and your work. I’m eager to learn a conventional structure to incorporate it into.
    Does philosophy really have a conventional structure? I have not found a unified structure yet. I know research(particularly scientific) has a couple of conventions.

    I recently read something that hints at structure utilizing: ontology, epistemology and methodology.
    Anomaly654 wrote:
    Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:47 pm
    You drew a comparison between HL1 and HL2 with Saussure’s signified and signifier. Are there other correspondences between your model and his?
    I am surprised that you picked up on this. Originally I was hinting at my full process being involved from inceptrons to HL2 - your observation is more accurate.
    - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

    User avatar
    Anomaly654
    Posts: 36
    Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:49 pm

    Re: Semiotics - Introduction

    Post by Anomaly654 » Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:23 pm

    encode_decode wrote:
    Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:57 pm
      Anomaly654

      My apologies for getting back to this so late - I have been in hospital for a few days
      Hope you have a speedy recovery.
      A lot of the philosophy that you and I have engaged in, is reductionist in its approach - for that, we tend to focus on individual aspects rather than the bigger picture and not only do we do that, but we utilize the same reductionist principle to try and explain away things that would lose their full substance by being reduced too much. We can only reduce so much - we can say that the universe is made of one substance but we can not really say that the actions of the substance is one thing as that loses meaning among the many complex interactions that happen with in the universe, so we end up with the word interaction which implies that there is more than one thing(more than one substance).
      This really strikes home with me. Being mostly a loner, as I put the pieces of the value mechanics ideas together over the years I thought and communicated it in pretty much the same way, jumping in and out of LoAs without realizing there were such things or that I was 'phasing in and out of hyperspace' in the brief flings I had at discussion with others. Jumping about between LoAs is normal to me because in my head I easily transition from value to energy/force to information to matter without a second thought...they're all just different descriptions of the same thing. Been thinking about this stuff in a vacuum [with only rare connections with other people] for so long didn't give a thought to how disorderly the ideas presented must sound to them. This probably explains a lot of why I'm usually either ignored altogether or told (in somewhat kinder words) I'm an idiot writing nonsense. You've been kind enough to show me paths to stability; for this I thank you.
      The real question in the above is how to define thing or substance. This I believe is a matter of convenience and lends credence to the concept of the LoA.
      Makes sense.
      Anomaly654 wrote:
      Sat Mar 10, 2018 4:47 pm
      I thought I’d already posted this, but apparently not.
      It is possible that you did
      No, didn't. I searched site but didn't post, tend to get confused easily.
      The brain is one big network analogous to the internet. Inside this one big network is many different smaller networks that form together to make the one big network(again analogous to the internet). Lets not focus on the one big network but rather the many smaller networks.

      Initially, we can say that related to language or meaning there are no networks formed(because we are babies). Overtime symbols(words and pictures) are formed. After hearing a word enough times we recognize it. After seeing something enough times we recognize it. The same can be said for hearing something. It is a small network of neurons that symbolize or signify any one of these things. We of course learn to create symbols.

      You asked: What sorts of “features of potential meanings” are added to a symbol to develop its full meaning? Given that all of these networks are connected into one big network we are able to form associations between the smaller networks. When a symbol begins to be, a new network is formed for that symbol as a part of the larger network that contains millions of symbols, and the other smaller networks each signifying symbols try to talk to the new network(you could say that neural networks are social) and add features to the new symbol - I believe the new network readily accepts these suggestions from the other networks and temporarily treats them as “features of potential meanings”. HL1 and HL2 settle on the most accurate features to form a new symbol or meaning(sometimes similar to other meanings, sometimes similar to other symbols).
      I'm assuming you're referring to accessing memory where experience is stored and borrowing from the features of those stored meanings to form a new symbol?
      many past relations are taken into account subconsciously before the conscious arrives at, at least one relation to form a new meaning. I suggest that all past relations affect the new outcome....

      "we actually impose a new meaning onto a thing" << if you think deep enough about this then it turns out to be actually true - what is the old saying about never stepping in the same place twice?
      Agreed if previous bit about accessing memory is correct. We impose "new" meanings from our store of meanings in 'memory networks' in the same way we borrow from existing information to form "new" informational configurations like fictions or scenes created in daydreaming? Of course being a theist the issue of how the concept of God and a spiritual, non-material dimension is able to present a content of information to minds that purportedly receive their content only from material reality is an area of interest to me, though answers are elusive.
      Does philosophy really have a conventional structure? I have not found a unified structure yet. I know research(particularly scientific) has a couple of conventions.
      See bit about LoAs above; the kind of structure I meant is finding a generally static "domain of presentation" [for lack of a better phrase] to test the fit of value mechanics into rather than creating my own, private little party that no one but me seems to understand.
      I recently read something that hints at structure utilizing: ontology, epistemology and methodology.
      Book? Article? Accessible on internet?

      Satyr
      Posts: 71
      Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:23 pm

      Re: Semiotics - Introduction

      Post by Satyr » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:13 pm

      Try to figure out what symbols/words are...Semiotics.
      Why they evolved, what function they served....
      My own analysis can be found Here.

      A graph to help:

      Phenomenon <>>>><>Symbol/Word<>>>>>>><>Noumenon

      A link....
      Body - Nervous System/Brain - Mind
      Physical - Interpretation - Abstraction

      Take care and good luck

      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Posts: 93
      Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

      Re: Semiotics - Introduction

      Post by encode_decode » Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:21 pm

      I was just checking that out earlier and will be doing a thorough reading of it.

      Currently I am more obsessed with your Nihilism - Symptomatology

      Found here:

      http://pathos-of-distance.forumotion.co ... tomatology
      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

      User avatar
      encode_decode
      Posts: 93
      Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:33 pm

      Re: Semiotics - Introduction

      Post by encode_decode » Fri Apr 13, 2018 11:33 pm

      Anomaly654 wrote:
      Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:23 pm
      I look forward to responding to your post - I have not forgotten.

      :D
      - Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion. (2017) -

      Post Reply