From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ariel!jcollier Tue Nov 26 12:31:04 EST 1991
Article 1456 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ariel!jcollier
>From: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is semiotics an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <1465@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: 21 Nov 91 06:50:05 GMT
References: <91310.142252MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET> <rreiner.689479216@yorku.ca> <1991Nov8.225437.8880@nuscc.nus.sg> <1991Nov11.024611.12312@nuscc.nus.sg> <5229@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Organization: University of Melbourne
Lines: 44

In <5229@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> paulh@cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Henman) writes:

>In <1991Nov11.024611.12312@nuscc.nus.sg> john@mango.iss.nus.sg (John Waterworth) writes:

}}The code-decode and, hence,
}}the semiotic model depend on the idea of shared knowledge, usually
}}called mutual knowledge. But in reality, there is little, sometimes no,
}}mutual knowledge. Communication is risky and error-prone, often largely
}}erroneous.

}Careful does it!  You're falling into one pole of the individual vs
}society as primary debate.

}It is hardly fair to say that there is "little, sometimes no, mutual
}knowledge".  You're communicating in English which myself and all the
}others presumably comprehend (if not "precisely", which is your
}criticism, whatever "precise" communication is?).  The whole society
}knows to stop at a red traffic sign, and understand the meaning of
}the symbols (1,2,3, ...) of the decimal counting system - all signs
}of society.  We are in fact immersed in mutual knowledge of society,
}but we shouldn't overstate that, because we all have individual knowledge,
}including individual representations of the mutual knowledge, which may
}be difficult to communicate precisely.

I would also consider it important that we are all immersed in a
more or less common  causal world, and that communication is first
of all a causal process. Communication is mostly a coordination
problem -- there is no need for some sort of "absolute" understanding.
We don't even have to know what we are talking about in order to
communicate.

A colleague of mine likes to make the distinction between the "executive"
and "secretarial" roles in communication -- only the executive is in the
privleged position of understanding what is being conveyed. I am not at all
clear that we need more than the secretarial role for successful
communication.

Someone might say -- "but that's not real communication". So what?


-- 
John Collier 			Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne		  	Fax:   61+3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052


