English 2.0 (EarthLing) skypecast

[heron stone]

The interpreter of a sign is an organism; the interpretant is the habit
of the organism to respond, because of the sign vehicle, to absent
objects which are relevant to a present problematic situation as if they
were present. In virtue of semiosis an organism takes account of
relevant properties of absent objects, or unobserved properties of
objects which are present, and in this lies the general instrumental
significance of ideas. Given the sign vehicle as an object of response,
the organism expects a situation of such and such a kind and, on the
basis of this expectation, can partially prepare itself in advance for
what may develop. The response to things through the intermediacy of
signs is thus biologically a continuation of the same process in which
the distance senses have taken precedence over the contact senses in the
control of conduct in higher animal forms; such animals through sight,
hearing, and smell are already responding to distant parts of the
environment through certain properties of objects functioning as signs
for other properties. This process of taking account of a constantly
more remote environment is simply continued in the complex process of
semiosis made possible by language, the object taken account of no
longer needing to be perceptually present.
- Charles Morris













English 2.0 (EarthLing): a debugged subset of wild english...
designed for clear thinking and accurate communication

.if you think in english, you're confused


what: open discussion/exploration
who: up to 99 people interested in language and...
intelligence/problem-solving/creativity/sociology/
enlightenment/planetary evolution/bob/etc.
why: because you know...
but you don't know you know...
you know ?
when: mondays, 20:00 to 21:00, california time
where: https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/ongoing
look for the green leaf icon and "EarthLing"


.you can download the free software at the following URL...
http://www.skype.com/


heron


.don't believe everything you hear your language machine say

unDO email address
___
Nature, heron stone
to be commanded, http://gendo.net
must be obeyed. mailto:***@gendo.net

[Stephen Calder]

Post by heron stone
The interpreter of a sign is an organism; the interpretant is the habit
of the organism to respond, because of the sign vehicle, to absent
objects which are relevant to a present problematic situation as if they
were present. In virtue of semiosis an organism takes account of
relevant properties of absent objects, or unobserved properties of
objects which are present, and in this lies the general instrumental
significance of ideas. Given the sign vehicle as an object of response,
the organism expects a situation of such and such a kind and, on the
basis of this expectation, can partially prepare itself in advance for
what may develop. The response to things through the intermediacy of
signs is thus biologically a continuation of the same process in which
the distance senses have taken precedence over the contact senses in the
control of conduct in higher animal forms; such animals through sight,
hearing, and smell are already responding to distant parts of the
environment through certain properties of objects functioning as signs
for other properties. This process of taking account of a constantly
more remote environment is simply continued in the complex process of
semiosis made possible by language, the object taken account of no
longer needing to be perceptually present.
- Charles Morris

What about when the perosn talking to you is lying about the object they
say they perceive but which is not present to them either?

Then we have false perception at a distance.

Which raises the question, how can we be sure our own perception is
true? Is what we see really there? Is there anything there we can't see?

How do you know?

[heron stone]

Post by Stephen Calder

Post by heron stone
The interpreter of a sign is an organism; the interpretant is the habit
of the organism to respond, because of the sign vehicle, to absent
objects which are relevant to a present problematic situation as if they
were present. In virtue of semiosis an organism takes account of
relevant properties of absent objects, or unobserved properties of
objects which are present, and in this lies the general instrumental
significance of ideas. Given the sign vehicle as an object of response,
the organism expects a situation of such and such a kind and, on the
basis of this expectation, can partially prepare itself in advance for
what may develop. The response to things through the intermediacy of
signs is thus biologically a continuation of the same process in which
the distance senses have taken precedence over the contact senses in the
control of conduct in higher animal forms; such animals through sight,
hearing, and smell are already responding to distant parts of the
environment through certain properties of objects functioning as signs
for other properties. This process of taking account of a constantly
more remote environment is simply continued in the complex process of
semiosis made possible by language, the object taken account of no
longer needing to be perceptually present.
- Charles Morris

What about when the perosn talking to you is lying about the object they
say they perceive but which is not present to them either?
Then we have false perception at a distance.
Which raises the question, how can we be sure our own perception is
true?

.we can't be absolutely sure of anything...
in the domain of language
.luckily we don't need to be sure
.we have our perception
.we have our theories
.we go on... together

Post by Stephen Calder
Is what we see really there? Is there anything there we can't see?

.a good question... but deformed by being formulated in wild enlish
.try asking it in English 2.0

Post by Stephen Calder
How do you know?

?how do i know what

unDO email address
___
Nature, heron stone
to be commanded, http://gendo.net
must be obeyed. mailto:***@gendo.net