A somewhat related topic to what I was talking about before:
You will have to dig a little deeper to find the connection but nonetheless, it is there and it is a very interesting article for it’s own sake.
Thanks . The process may be simple , but the connection is complex, and rather mysterious, as in the quest for both: the varied interpretations of perceptions as they form a common reality, ranging from fairly standardized to extraordinary.
Meno_
It seems I missed the part of your post after you made a subsequent edit. I may be responsible for taking us of track a little. Yes, decoding is actually all guess work as my models show - but we have not come that far in our conversation yet. I think I am following the rest of what you are saying - from my point of view, you seem to have moved us that far forward in our conversation but I have to decode what you are saying properly for my response to come out reflective of the way you intended your discourse.
The original intention and the most likely outcome are inevitably related. The outcome has its own sense of signification as does the original intention and they have a small level of entropy between them. Therefore relation is not absolute. The [matter(x) requiring resolution] of probable general forms is with effect from a date in the past a systemic dilemma(coming from the entropy involved), “where as determination correlates basically by formative alignments between what has been caused by a chain of determinants based on original intention and most likely outcome”.
The development of an individual behavioral feature(being intentionality) from the earliest stage to maturity within the temporal flux.
I would have to know first, whether you are talking Heidegger’s re-interpretation of Dasein or something else(which you may elaborate on for me) before I could interpret the full quote. There is change involved by the time you read something that was written in the past.
The syntax is always ambiguous.
May I request further elaboration on Hobbes’ Choice?
Forgive the lapse You must give me time I’m as usual in the middle- of - some -thing. Later thanks
Thank You Decode
Today is the day I go to apple and find the tricks it takes to figure out how to sub-quote so that I may comment on Your previous comments on a post or two back, so as to be able to dialogue likewise.
My own theory of signs (or semiotics) is similar to de Saussure’s semiology in that I accept his signifier-signified dyad as being fundamental. This is also where I differ from Peirce who thinks that his sign-object-interpretant triad cannot be reduced to a dyad. I certainly don’t understand Peirce’s obsession with triads. Where I am similar to Peirce is in my broad understanding of the concept of sign. To me, every relate-correlate relation can be considered a signifier-signified relation. Every relate can be considered a signified and every correlate can be considered a signifier. A light bulb, for example, being a correlate in relation to a light switch, can be considered a sign of a light switch. Whenever you press the light switch, the lights turn on. By reasoning in a backward fashion, the process that Peirce calls “abduction” or “retroduction”, we can say that whenever the lights are on there was someone in the past who pressed the light switch. The lights thus become a sign of someone pressing the light switch in the past. A sign is basically any piece of information that we can use to make an accurate assumption regarding something unknown. That’s what a sign is in the general sense of the word.
Hello Magnus,
Heuristically a signal-sign-signaling triad, backwards. Implied the forward moving development of the sign , where the signal is like a bypass through which the signal moves forward the idea of the sign.
The sign develops through repetitive , multiple use of the signal , by using it to bring forth the idea of the signal
The sign is the culmination of multiple use. Hence, backwards, 'signal is a hybred between idea and use.
A signified-sign-signifier is only a type of specific usage, by a pre-existing usage of an idea between an existent , where it is a transcendent ., whereas the later had developed into the transcendental idea.
In essence Pierce shows the overcoming of the genealogy of the existential meaning.
The obsession of the reduction shows the ontogenesis behind an idea. Percy faces similar objections as those by Russel , and the idea behind the idea lands him in the pure pre-existing formal idea behind it- as Frege held, except in Russell’s logic the the idea as object is material. You could characterize Pierce as more idealistic of the two.
Yes, I agree and the following quote from Wikipedia sums it up in a different way but related:
It is this combination that is not to be viewed as a one to one combination but rather a one to many correlation.
That is my take on it anyway.
A one to many correlation is why reality and perception get further away from each other.
An interesting way to perceive can be found in the words of the following book on the Philosophy of Information:
I have not read it all myself yet but I recommend it to anyone interested in perceiving reality in an unique way.
Another interesting tie in is the difference between connotive and a denotive uses of language. Connotations are a mixed breed using many forms, unrelated to or ,related variously , sometimes mixed with emotive fragments, which minimize the differences between reality and perception.
Yes, I can see why you say this and once I followed this path a little I ended up at the words intension and extension - with the word intension leading me to an example of Saussure’s signifier, signified and referent system. Thanks for this snippet - it is helping me tie things together a bit better.
GoOdness your first explaintion of the subject was enough. The rest of these bafoOns turned it into something extremely complex and misconstrued. [Heargy Heargy!] I have for you my philosophical take on things. So, As You said. It was evident to those around to those which they had their own perspective and sense on/and/of reality. And had seen enough to define as much as they could the definitive truths to which they’ve faced. We all have had our share of moments when we thought reality fooled us. Looking back on it now. It seems it is no more than an elaborate hoax by perception itself than actual hallucinations. Don’t you see? Certain events and actual realities have warped certain beliefs in people so that they see differently now. It quite simple. Reality can bend our fabrics of truths and false realities.
Lmao encode_decode reminds me of when I started out here.
Well, nice seeing You back.
Oh I see it. As time goes by people change.
It is a progression - an unavoidable progression - we can not avoid but to take things in. The mind fights the brain and the brain responds impartially.
This is a balancing act that does not always end well for the individual attempting to perceive reality . . .
. . . and sometimes with the individual further venturing to give truthful account equal to what is actually real.