From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!mercury.unt.edu!mips.mitek.com!spssig.spss.com!markrose Tue Apr  7 23:22:32 EDT 1992
Article 4745 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!mercury.unt.edu!mips.mitek.com!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Language as Technology: A Phenomenological Study
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.190527.3034@spss.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 19:05:27 GMT
References: <1992Mar25.185007.21788@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar25.225555.41966@spss.com> <1992Mar26.130807.18717@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 46

In article <1992Mar26.130807.18717@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil 
Rickert) writes:
> I agree those are analog features.  It is not so certain they should be
>considered part of language, but if you wish to so treat them you will
>surely agree that they are relatively unimportant, given that they do
>not show up in printed language, and are not very apparent with some
>speakers.

They're important or unimportant depending on what you're studying.

Modern linguistics likes to emphasize that spoken language is more basic
than written.  Some of these features of spoken languages haven't received
enough attention, but are very interesting, and any approach to language
that ignores them will be impoverished.

> Imagine that you wanted to plan tomorrow's dinner without digital means.
>You might draw some lines in the sand to represent the table.  Find some
>large rocks to represent the place settings, some smaller rocks to represent
>the meat course, perhaps some twigs to represent the vegetables, etc.  It
>becomes an elaborate production.  It is far too much effort to be worth
>doing.  It is the digital nature of language which allows you to construct
>the model in your mind without depending on physical artifacts.

Are you quite sure you're talking about the analog/digital distinction?
What's so analog about using twigs to represent vegetables?  

I'm having a hard time finding any analog way to think about vegetables
at all.  Perhaps what you're really getting at, here, is the human ability
to create categories ("carrots" versus "turnips").  Certainly abstract
thought depends on this, and we have trouble saying much about realms
(such as smell) which we haven't satisfactorily divided into categories,
or into enough categories.

You may also be dealing with the distinction between a physical and a
non-physical model; but this is not the same as digital/analog either.
A physical model could be digital (e.g. representing money with poker chips),
and a symbolic model can include analog elements, such as real
numbers or vectors.

On the neurological level our brains use both types of process, don't 
they?  E.g. neuron firings are digital, but amounts of neurotransmitters
are analog.

(On HDTV I have to let the discussion lapse.  Your statement seemed to
contradict some of what I'd read, but I don't know enough about it to
know what I'm talking about.)


