Semiotics for Blagsta

[klintock]

Let's have a laugh with Blagsta.

Here's the thread. What point do you want to be making?

[Blagsta]

As you're the one that keeps bringing it up, I assume that you have something to say about it.

[klintock]

Not at all. Whenever I point out that words are just inventions and don't mean anything on their own you bring it up. I did a quick google and it seems to be bollocks to me but there you go.

So, anytime you fancy doing it in future you have your own thread to come to.

Enjoy. ;)

[Blagsta]

LOL! :D Good way of wiggling out of a situation of your own creation! Seeing as you don't want to discuss semiotics, stop bringing it up then.

[Blagsta]

P.S.
Please explain why you think it is "bollocks". Considering semiotics is the study of language, signs and signifiers and one of its main principles is that words don't have meanings in and of themselves but are part of a structure with an arbitary relationship between sign, signifier and signified (you might like to look up Ferdinand de Saussure sometime), I'd have thought it would be entirely relevent to your points. Or is the problem that you don't like to admit that you don't actually have a clue what you're on about?

[klintock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

yeah I looked it up. unfortunately the idea that signs/words have more than a personal meaning is ridiculous.

To understand how language works -

I say "fire" you go inside your memory and select some representation of fire in any one of your sensory choices -

You might have seen a fire burning, smelled it, heard the crackle of it, felt the heat or any combination of these inside your mind. This is how we make sense of words. If you were synesthesic you might have tasted it as well. This happens very very quickly.

The command to access that experience does not have to be the word "fire" it can be "fuego" or "cheese". And it is a command. You have to imagine what I write in order to make sense of the words you are currently reading.

Some parts of this are stored in conscious awareness, some parts are stored in unconscious awareness, or in the different hemispheres of the brain. Each word has a meaning to you and to you alone. The fact that others have meanings which are close to yours let's you do cool things like run from a burning building or whatever. Once you get beyond stuff that can be commonly sensed you are talking to yourself alone more often than not.

I will just provide links at this point so you can verify -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational-generative_grammar

http://brain.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/125/2/361

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper1/Ball.html

Semiotics seems to be, on the other hand.......bollocks.

[Blagsta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

yeah I looked it up. unfortunately the idea that signs/words have more than a personal meaning is ridiculous
*rest of irrelevant gibberish snipped*

Errr...what on earth are you on about? You have neatly sidestepped why you think semiotics is bollocks. Let's try again shall we? Why do you think it is "bollocks"?

[Blagsta]

P.S.
Your links spectacularly fail to back up what little point you have.

[Blagsta]

For someone who claims to have expert knowledge about the brain and language (btw no one actually knows how the brain acquires, uses and understands language - not even you klintock) to have never heard of semiotics, is quite astonishing.

[Jim V]

As a nice intro to semiotics I'd recommend Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema - but as a former student of hers I'm biased. Sure is better than jumping right in with Lacanian theory.

Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (http://www.panix.com/~squigle/vcs/mulvey-vpnc.html)

[klintock]

Errr...what on earth are you on about? You have neatly sidestepped why you think semiotics is bollocks. Let's try again shall we? Why do you think it is "bollocks"?

okay dokay.

What part of my answer are you stuck on Blagsta?

This paper intends to use psychoanalysis to discover where and how the fascination of film is reinforced by pre-existing patterns of fascination already at work within the individual subject and the social formations that have molded him

Feeling emotions/body sensations dependant on visual stimulus is a type of synesthesia. No two peoples set of sensations will be the same. Some individuals will not have any. Semiotics (I apologise if my hurried reading of the drivel is incorrect) claims to derive meaning from this process. I don't think that things(stimuli) have meaning, I think they have effects and people have meanings that are entirely personal for those effects.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/syne.html

[Jim V]

Not clear about the source, you're saying you have a medical condition that explains your outlook, if so then you can hardly generalise your own perception as how everyone else percieves the world.

[Jim V]

Oh, and why is there a similar reaction by a large number of people during emotional high points in films? Why would so many people in a group react in very similar ways?

[klintock]

Not clear about the source, you're saying you have a medical condition that explains your outlook, if so then you can hardly generalise your own perception as how everyone else percieves the world

Errrr no. I don't have this problem. The fact that some people do have it shows that there is no meaning in symbols. There are people who taste shapes, see smells etc. The medical problems from synesthesia come from perceiving the world differently from others. If everyone tasted shapes then the "problem" wouldn't be one, it would be normal.

What most, or a majority of people do is see/feel. As in see woman/man and then feel aroused. This obviously does not have to be the case. As one woman can produce many different responses from many different men, so can one symbol or sign produce the same number of different responses.

The meaning of a symbol or sign must therefore be contained within the experience of the viewer, and not in the symbol. Hence the rejection of semiotics.

[MrG]

Errrr no. I don't have this problem. The fact that some people do have it shows that there is no meaning in symbols. There are people who taste shapes, see smells etc. The medical problems from synesthesia come from perceiving the world differently from others. If everyone tasted shapes then the "problem" wouldn't be one, it would be normal.

What most, or a majority of people do is see/feel. As in see woman/man and then feel aroused. This obviously does not have to be the case. As one woman can produce many different responses from many different men, so can one symbol or sign produce the same number of different responses.

The meaning of a symbol or sign must therefore be contained within the experience of the viewer, and not in the symbol. Hence the rejection of semiotics.

the meaning of a symbol could be explained from within the symbol, except those with a problem do not see it that way

[Jim V]

The meaning of a symbol isn't created suddenly and independantly, which is why this discussion isn't about the effect of a sign on a viewer, it's the inter-relationship between the sign, signifier and signified that creates the commonality.

And surely the fact that people can be diagnoised with a medical condition because they don't percieve things normally shows there is a mesurable norm. I think the link actually questions everything you're saying rather than supports it.

[klintock]

The meaning of a symbol isn't created suddenly and independantly,

Yes, it is. The fact that most people respond a certain way to stimuli means that they will react in a similar fashion. They all come to the similar conclusions independently of one another because they are using the same process as each other. (More or less) Blind men don't get upset by swastikas.

And surely the fact that people can be diagnoised with a medical condition because they don't percieve things normally shows there is a mesurable norm. I think the link actually questions everything you're saying rather than supports it.

Each and every individual has a slightly different internal response. Only when the internal response is radically different is it noticed.

Quick experiment. Think of the word "love". Do you really think that it creates the same physical and internal experiences as the next man has?

What is "love" to you? Is it something you feel? Something you see? Or is it a noise? Your own specific set of characteristics for love will be highly personal, individual to you.

For one person "love" might be an increased heart-rate with a rise in temperature accross the face and a shortness of breath. For another it might be a series of fantasy pictures (in the minds eye) of them and their lover wile their body goes and relaxes.

Working all that backwards seems to be "semiotics". Saying that one object can create the same sensations in all/some or even two of it's viewers is ridiculous.

[MrG]

Working all that backwards seems to be "semiotics". Saying that one object can create the same sensations in all/some or even two of it's viewers is ridiculous.

it can do though, doesnt mean it HAS to

and as for love, you ever heard of words which can have multiple meaning, like

lead = is it a metal or and action

[klintock]

lead = is it a metal or and action

Another layer of complexity to add to the mix doesn't prove the point does it?

and as for love, you ever heard of words which can have multiple meaning, like

No words have meaning. If meaning was contained in the words then I would understand all languages automatically. As I have to learn what is "meant" by the words used, then I must be the one who holds the "meaning".

[MrG]

Another layer of complexity to add to the mix doesn't prove the point does it?



No words have meaning. If meaning was contained in the words then I would understand all languages automatically. As I have to learn what is "meant" by the words used, then I must be the one who holds the "meaning".

and the meaning of the words once learnt is universla to all ofthose that speak the same language, therefore shooting you down yet again

[klintock]

and the meaning of the words once learnt is universla to all ofthose that speak the same language, therefore shooting you down yet again

Two things -

First of all I showed how "meaning" isn't duplicated between people even on the most basic level. My whole point is that people speak their own private language that has similarities with others, but is not exactly the same. Where there is a degree of overlap there can be useful communication.

Second - in order to shoot me down again, you would have had to do it a first time.

[MrG]

Two things -

First of all I showed how "meaning" isn't duplicated between people even on the most basic level. My whole point is that people speak their own private language that has similarities with others, but is not exactly the same. Where there is a degree of overlap there can be useful communication.

Second - in order to shoot me down again, you would have had to do it a first time.

my mistake you did it yourself

a) run into what we all call a tree as hard as you can, and then tell me when you are in A&E that trees dont exist

people dont speak their own private language, you do realise that things like the websters dictionary is universal to all? its the same book to everyone?

[Blagsta]

okay dokay.

What part of my answer are you stuck on Blagsta?



Feeling emotions/body sensations dependant on visual stimulus is a type of synesthesia. No two peoples set of sensations will be the same. Some individuals will not have any. Semiotics (I apologise if my hurried reading of the drivel is incorrect) claims to derive meaning from this process. I don't think that things(stimuli) have meaning, I think they have effects and people have meanings that are entirely personal for those effects.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/syne.html


This is utter gibberish.

[Blagsta]

The meaning of a symbol or sign must therefore be contained within the experience of the viewer, and not in the symbol. Hence the rejection of semiotics.

You've utterly misunderstood semiotics. The whole point is that symbols don't have inherent meanings.

[MrG]

This is utter gibberish.

i know, i doubt he actually understands anything about it

[Blagsta]

Yes, it is. The fact that most people respond a certain way to stimuli means that they will react in a similar fashion. They all come to the similar conclusions independently of one another because they are using the same process as each other. (More or less) Blind men don't get upset by swastikas.



Each and every individual has a slightly different internal response. Only when the internal response is radically different is it noticed.

Quick experiment. Think of the word "love". Do you really think that it creates the same physical and internal experiences as the next man has?

What is "love" to you? Is it something you feel? Something you see? Or is it a noise? Your own specific set of characteristics for love will be highly personal, individual to you.

For one person "love" might be an increased heart-rate with a rise in temperature accross the face and a shortness of breath. For another it might be a series of fantasy pictures (in the minds eye) of them and their lover wile their body goes and relaxes.

Working all that backwards seems to be "semiotics". Saying that one object can create the same sensations in all/some or even two of it's viewers is ridiculous.


More gibberish. Semiotics doesn't say anything of the sort.

[Blagsta]

No words have meaning. If meaning was contained in the words then I would understand all languages automatically. As I have to learn what is "meant" by the words used, then I must be the one who holds the "meaning".

Even more gibberish. Yes, symbols don't have inherent meanings, meaning is in the structure, the relationships of symbols. If it was only you who held the "meaning", communication would be impossible.

[Blagsta]

Two things -

First of all I showed how "meaning" isn't duplicated between people even on the most basic level. My whole point is that people speak their own private language that has similarities with others, but is not exactly the same. Where there is a degree of overlap there can be useful communication.

Second - in order to shoot me down again, you would have had to do it a first time.

No one has to shoot you down, you do it yourself quite adequately.

[MrG]

what happens when his record stops been broken?

i hope he aint a pop fan, i couldnt be doing with show me the way to amarillo after all that tripe ive read of his

[klintock]

a) run into what we all call a tree as hard as you can, and then tell me when you are in A&E that trees dont exist

Oh dear. You do know that you can only have a tree if you are not looking at branches or forests don't you? On the other hand if we changed the word "matress" for "tree" and stuck to it then a "tree" would become a "matress". The word then, is not linked to the thing it symbolises.

I am thinking of a rock. Now you think of a rock.

I was thinking of a piece of grey/blue granite with the light from above. Were you thinking of the exact same thing as I was?

Were you fuck.

There would be some element of similarity but it's incredibly unlikely that you were thinking of the same thing i was. No imagine the amount of agreement we would have when you start saying "Semiotics". Little? None?

people dont speak their own private language, you do realise that things like the websters dictionary is universal to all? its the same book to everyone

The fact that you need a dictionary to agree definitions proves that words don't just have one meaning. For the sake of convenience we might take "Websters" completely arbitary choice as being most useful.

That's fine by me, but it still requires me and you to learn "meaning" independently of each other so we can communicate effectively.

[Jim V]

For the last time, the whole basis of semiotics is that words don't have any meaning in themselves - that's the whole principal of the idea.

[MrG]

Oh dear. You do know that you can only have a tree if you are not looking at branches or forests don't you? On the other hand if we changed the word "matress" for "tree" and stuck to it then a "tree" would become a "matress". The word then, is not linked to the thing it symbolises.


the flaw in your argument is that we wouldnt do that

I was thinking of a piece of grey/blue granite with the light from above. Were you thinking of the exact same thing as I was?

yes i was, i was still thinking of a rock

and as for the language, learn to calm down you foul mouthed ignorant and looking like you dont understand a thing kinda person

[klintock]

For the last time, the whole basis of semiotics is that words don't have any meaning in themselves - that's the whole principal of the idea.

From what I have read the whole principal of the idea is that groups of people have meanings for words. Absolute madness if you can't find any two who can agree.

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html

People think they have agreement but unless they get very very specific that isn't possible. Also there are thngs I can become aware of that have no names and need none unless I wish to talk about them. The idea that language traps thought in this way is fine if you think auditorily but not everyone does.

Even more gibberish. Yes, symbols don't have inherent meanings, meaning is in the structure, the relationships of symbols. If it was only you who held the "meaning", communication would be impossible.

Who holds "meaning" if I don't?

[MrG]

Who holds "meaning" if I don't?

very true, thats why as informed as you think you may be, you can stil be wrong

[Blagsta]

From what I have read the whole principal of the idea is that groups of people have meanings for words. Absolute madness if you can't find any two who can agree.

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html

:confused: Why don't you quote the passage that is confusing you and we'll see if we can help you out?

People think they have agreement but unless they get very very specific that isn't possible. Also there are thngs I can become aware of that have no names and need none unless I wish to talk about them. The idea that language traps thought in this way is fine if you think auditorily but not everyone does.

But you've been arguing in other posts that language does trap thought. Make up your mind!

Who holds "meaning" if I don't?

It is not only you who holds "meaning", otherwise, as I said, communication would be impossible. Language is a shared structure. I must admit, I'm almost out of my depth here, I don't know a huge amount about linguistics, but you appear to have drowned a long time ago!

[Blagsta]

This might interest you

A number of thought-provoking statements about the nature of meaning were made by the communication theorist David Berlo Berlo (1960):

Meanings are in people
Communication does not consist of the transmission of meanings, but of the transmission of messages
Meanings are not in the message; they are in the message-users
Words do not mean at all; only people mean
People can have similar meanings only to the extent that they have had, or can anticipate having, similar experiences
Meanings are never fixed; as experience changes, so meanings change
No two people can have exactly the same meaning for anything

it then goes on to say

Berlo was working rather within 'Communication Science' than within 'Semiotics'. However, much of what he has to say about meaning is close to what semioticians have to say.
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/meaning1.html

(italics mine)

[Blagsta]

And this might help you with a critique of semiotics
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/semio1.html#criticism

[klintock]

It is not only you who holds "meaning", otherwise, as I said, communication would be impossible. Language is a shared structure. I must admit, I'm almost out of my depth here, I don't know a huge amount about linguistics, but you appear to have drowned a long time ago!

Only I hold MY meanings. Unless we were to get very very specific about what I mean then my meanings are not shared.

But you've been arguing in other posts that language does trap thought. Make up your mind!

Language does trap thought if you use it to think with. I don't - it's slow and digital. I prefer the visual system which is much quicker and also is anologue so has many more grades of experience.

Meanings are in people

Agreed. Although changing "meaning" for automatic learned responses is nearer the mark.

Communication does not consist of the transmission of meanings, but of the transmission of messages

Nope. Communication is accessing someone elses memory to get those automatic responses we want. Mary had a little _____.

Meanings are not in the message; they are in the message-users

Nope they are in the message receivers. The "user" might also have a meaning but it's doubtful hey are the same.

Words do not mean at all; only people mean

Words are a type of hypnotic "anchor" to reaccess past experience. They "mean" nowt.

People can have similar meanings only to the extent that they have had, or can anticipate having, similar experiences

You can use language to create brand new experiences for people so that's out. You can also get specific and duplicate someone elses experiences. what would happen if you were to imagine something that is the opposite of green leather?

Meanings are never fixed; as experience changes, so meanings change

The word that accesses past experience may change but the past experiences don't.

No two people can have exactly the same meaning for anything

Usually true but you can force the issue.

[Blagsta]

Why don't you just admit that you don't know what you're on about and be done with it? Its blatantly obvious that you've backed yourself into a corner (again!) and can't get out. Own up then we can all move on.

[klintock]

Why don't you just admit that you don't know what you're on about and be done with it? Its blatantly obvious that you've backed yourself into a corner (again!) and can't get out. Own up then we can all move on.

Huh?

I covered the points raised quite well. Not exhaustive by any means, but what are you having trouble with?

[The_Grapes_of_Sloth]

Only I hold MY meanings. Unless we were to get very very specific about what I mean then my meanings are not shared.

Aspects are shared. When you talk about a rock, we both have a mental experience of certain 'rocky characteristics'.

[budda]

So words dont have meaning in of themselves. Great.

And that affects ANYONES day-to-day life how?

This sounds to me like teenage philosophy. Really deep to those who say it but pointless in the extreme to anyone else.

[Blagsta]

Huh?

I covered the points raised quite well. Not exhaustive by any means, but what are you having trouble with?

LOL! :D Give it up klintock, you're not fooling anyone.

[Blagsta]

So words dont have meaning in of themselves. Great.

And that affects ANYONES day-to-day life how?

This sounds to me like teenage philosophy. Really deep to those who say it but pointless in the extreme to anyone else.

Semiotics itself is a tool for analysing and looking for meanings within culture. Quite useful if you're into that sort of thing. But yes, klintock's points are useless, non-sensical and on the level of 6th form debate.

[klintock]

And that affects ANYONES day-to-day life how?

You don't think that going and replicating a millionaires "meaning" of money is useful?

How about a seducers understanding of "seduction"?

How about taking a "phobic" and showing them how the unafraid have "meaning" for the thing they fear?

Aspects are shared. When you talk about a rock, we both have a mental experience of certain 'rocky characteristics'.

Uh - huh. What about a word with no sensory overlap, like "democracy"?

[Blagsta]

Give it up.

[Blagsta]

Language does trap thought if you use it to think with. I don't - it's slow and digital. I prefer the visual system which is much quicker and also is anologue so has many more grades of experience.

I'm starting to think you have some kind of mild psychosis.

[The_Grapes_of_Sloth]

Uh - huh. What about a word with no sensory overlap, like "democracy"?

Makes no difference. We still have a core of the concept which will be the same.

[CptCoatHanger]

Klintock does seem to be making the effort to explain himself in this debate. The responses he has had don't seem to normally equate to more than "You're talking gibberish". I've no experience on this topic myself but i'm following with interest and would like to see someone give a critical break down of Klintocks opinions rather than just dismissing him.

[Blagsta]

Klintock's posts are gibberish because they entirely misunderstand what semiotics is saying, don't make any logical sense, he fails to place his viewpoint in any kind of context, the posts he does use to attempt to back up his points don't actually do anything of the sort and he makes non-sensical claims about language being digital.

[budda]

You don't think that going and replicating a millionaires "meaning" of money is useful?

How about a seducers understanding of "seduction"?

How about taking a "phobic" and showing them how the unafraid have "meaning" for the thing they fear?

Yes, I do think thats useful, but what words you choose to describe those actions dont really matter as long as you are understood.

[CptCoatHanger]

Can i get a definition of what you understand semiotics to be?

As i said before, it's not a topic i know anything about but i think it would be constructive to this debate and to my understanding of what you think Klintock has wrong.

[Blagsta]

Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols. This includes language. It makes a distinction between sign, signifier and signified. Roughly this means that a sign (a word, symbol etc) consists of the actual thing itself (the signifier) and the mental concept it creates (the signified). The linguist Saussure came up with this way of thinking in the early 1900's. He also pointed out that this system of signs, signifiers and signified was arbitary, i.e. the signs do not have meanings in and of themselves, rather the meaning arises from the system of signs and the relationships between signs. Roland Barthes and others took this forward into analysing meanings within culture such as advertisements, fashion etc. One of the reasons why I think klintock is full of shit is that he claims to have indepth understanding of how language works, yet has never heard of Sausurre or semiotics. Klintock bangs on about how a word sound/symbol creates a mental image (sign -> signifier/signified) and how these mental concepts are never exactly the same for people, but fails to see that this is what semiotics is saying! There are things to critique semiotics about (I provided a link earlier), yet klintock totally fails to engage with this and persists in misunderstanding what semiotics means. He comes across like only he knows the TRUTH about how language and the world operates, yet totally fails to actually locate his ideas in any historical or intellectual context, leading me to think that he's a bit silly really.

See here
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Semiotics
for more defintions.

This
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/semio1.html
is very useful. Thanks for the link klintock and well done for failing to actually read and understand any of it.

[MrG]

Language does trap thought if you use it to think with. I don't - it's slow and digital. I prefer the visual system which is much quicker and also is anologue so has many more grades of experience

no, even spekaing is analogue

[budda]

no, even spekaing is analogue

Unless its recorded.

[MrG]

which then could still be analogue :P

depends on if you use a digital device

[droid42]

Having just trawled through this thread for the last 10 minutes and skimmed a couple of links, semiotics appears to be mostly "common sense" and just another way of formalising the way things as common-place as language/signs are studied and understood (drawing parallels with transactional analysis as a way of formalising human-to-human communication with the aim of using it as a counselling tool).

Very interesting thread...

Ian.

[klintock]

Word.

See that wasn't analogue now was it? You can't have more or less of a word spoken.

now if i went

WORD

That might have a different effect. The different effect isn't from the "meaning" of the word itself it's from the way in which it is presented. So you can have analogue in the visual system but it's much trickier to have analogue in the auditory one. It's also much much faster to visualise internally than it is to speak internally.

Form is more important than "meaning". A person with a phobic response might be making big bright pictures (internally and very quickly) of the thing they fear (i.e. being bitten by a snake). the quickest way of reducing the fear is for them to take conscious control of those internal represntations. The most consistent way I have found of doing this is to reduce the size of the image, change it's distance relative to the viewer and drain the colour out of it.

There are many other ways of doing this however.

One of the reasons why I think klintock is full of shit is that he claims to have indepth understanding of how language works, yet has never heard of Sausurre or semiotics

I am afraid I don't know much about flat earth theory either. Who came up with it how it works tends to be irrelevant when you know it's bollox from the off.

He comes across like only he knows the TRUTH about how language and the world operates, yet totally fails to actually locate his ideas in any historical or intellectual context, leading me to think that he's a bit silly really.

Read a couple of histories of hypnosis, particularly Dr. Erickson's work in the 50's and Bandler and Grinders use of chomsky's ideas of transformational grammar on his technique. Especially deep structure derived from surface structures and how to get a client to recover them.

Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D Vol 2 is very useful in this regard.

is very useful. Thanks for the link klintock and well done for failing to actually read and understand any of it.

I did read it. I dismissed it as being horsehit for reasons already stated.

[Blagsta]

Not really common sense, more a way of analysing and interpreting culture.

[droid42]

Not really common sense, more a way of analysing and interpreting culture.

Which is kinda what I said lol. Perhaps the use of "common sense" was a bit inappropriate in this context. I guess a lot of people now consider the Theory of Evolution to be common sense just because of the way it seems to be "right" (at least to most people ;) )

Ian.

[Blagsta]

Word.

See that wasn't analogue now was it? You can't have more or less of a word spoken.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

now if i went

WORD

That might have a different effect. The different effect isn't from the "meaning" of the word itself it's from the way in which it is presented. So you can have analogue in the visual system but it's much trickier to have analogue in the auditory one. It's also much much faster to visualise internally than it is to speak internally.

This makes no sense either. Written words are visual symbols, that's the whole point. You're using terms like analogue and digital without understanding what you mean by them

Form is more important than "meaning". A person with a phobic response might be making big bright pictures (internally and very quickly) of the thing they fear (i.e. being bitten by a snake). the quickest way of reducing the fear is for them to take conscious control of those internal represntations. The most consistent way I have found of doing this is to reduce the size of the image, change it's distance relative to the viewer and drain the colour out of it.

More nonsense. What do you mean by "form"? :confused: Do you mean the way in which a symbol is presented (the sign)? What do you mean? It really isn't clear.



I am afraid I don't know much about flat earth theory either. Who came up with it how it works tends to be irrelevant when you know it's bollox from the off.

This is not the point. What you are arguing is very similar to semiotics. Semiotics was/is a very important theory of how meaning arises, for you, who claims to be a world expert on linguistics, to never have heard of it, is quite astounding.

Read a couple of histories of hypnosis, particularly Dr. Erickson's work in the 50's and Bandler and Grinders use of chomsky's ideas of transformational grammar on his technique. Especially deep structure derived from surface structures and how to get a client to recover them.

Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D Vol 2 is very useful in this regard.

Give me a quick precis, I don't really have the time to track down and read it. Also try and locate your views in a philosophical and intellectual context, because they do have one (semiotics being a case in point). This is very much like how you tried to argue your own concepts of freedom without being able to locate them in a context - you end up appearing very very foolish.

I did read it. I dismissed it as being horsehit for reasons already stated.

You have attempted to dismiss it (which didn't actually amount to anything more than "it's bollocks") based on a complete and utter misunderstanding of it.

[klintock]

Digital. Either "on" or "off".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital

As opposed to analogue - continuous and variable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogue

The form of "word" can have both digital and analogue qualities "Word" but the "meaning" remains constant if it is visual but cannot as easily if it is auditory.

You're using terms like analogue and digital without understanding what you mean by them

Read it again and see if you het it this time.

Give me a quick precis, I don't really have the time to track down and read it. Also try and locate your views in a philosophical and intellectual context

I will have a go in ten minutes or so once I have read it again.

[Blagsta]

Yes, I know what digital means thanks. However, in the context in which you are using it, it is nonsense.

[klintock]

Yes, I know what digital means thanks. However, in the context in which you are using it, it is nonsense.

Explain please. You are saying that if you look at another person and say any word at random then that is not a digital form of communication?

[Blagsta]

Explain please. You are saying that if you look at another person and say any word at random then that is not a digital form of communication?

You're not making any sense.

[Blagsta]

How does meaning remain constant if visual? :confused: :confused:

[klintock]

Look at this -


Blagsta

Now shut your eyes and see it anyway.

Got it?

Now shut your eyes and say "Blagsta" to yourself over and over again.

Notice that you can maintain the visualisation but that the spoken word has to loop over and over again, because it's digital. Now notice that you can move the word Blagsta back and forwards in your minds eye, making it bigger and smaller and you can even change the colour of it. Like it was analogue, neh?

Does the meaning change if the word wanders about?

[Blagsta]

That's utter gibberish. Sounds are not digital, they do however have a temporal dimension to them, in a way that static visuals don't. That does not mean they are "digital" though. To say it does shows that you clearly haven't a clue what "digital" means. I can say the word Blagsta in my head in different ways as well. What is your point? Do you have one? Do you have any idea what you're actually on about? The more you post, the more you come across as an idiot.

[klintock]

My god you don't half get hysterical.

I can say the word Blagsta in my head in different ways as well

I thought that semiotics says that -

The meaning of a symbol isn't created suddenly and independantly, which is why this discussion isn't about the effect of a sign on a viewer, it's the inter-relationship between the sign, signifier and signified that creates the commonality. (Jim V)

But you've just told me that you can change the effect of a symbol as personal as your own name without changing the meaning of it. Or is a sexy woman's voice whispering "Blagsta" close to your ear the same effect as a 19 stone hod carrier screaming it at you?

What is your point? Do you have one

Only that the fundamental premise of semiotics is bollox. Stuff doen't "mean" anything, it only has an effect.

Do you have any idea what you're actually on about?

Yes. Yes I do.

[MrG]

It's more me doing inductions on people for specific effect. mainly using the meta model from NLP and some other stuff I learned as a hypnotist. I also try not to distort, generalise or delete in my initial thoughts on a topic but leave that whole part of the process out and jump in halfway. It makes for more interesting discussions as people get lost and argumentative.

the above from klintock shows him for the twit that he is

[Jim V]

I was talking about the social construct of a word, but I know you're the only person in the world who isn't part of a society so lets not go on with that boredom again

[klintock]

the above from klintock shows him for the twit that he is

Didn't see that coming, Mr. G.

[Blagsta]

My god you don't half get hysterical.



I thought that semiotics says that -

(Jim V)

Semiotics is about systems, relationships of symbols, about how we share meaning.

But you've just told me that you can change the effect of a symbol as personal as your own name without changing the meaning of it

I've said nothing of the sort.

Or is a sexy woman's voice whispering "Blagsta" close to your ear the same effect as a 19 stone hod carrier screaming it at you?

Seeing as I didn't write anything remotely similar to what you think I did, this is irrelevant.


Only that the fundamental premise of semiotics is bollox. Stuff doen't "mean" anything, it only has an effect.

But this is exactly the premise of semiotics - symbols do not have inherent meaning. Try reading that link you posted.

Yes. Yes I do.

You quite blatantly don't. You're a fool.

[Blagsta]

the above from klintock shows him for the twit that he is

I think he's suffering from some kind of psychotic delusion.

[MrG]

either that or puberty

[Blagsta]

Explain to us again how sounds are digital klintock.

[klintock]

about how we share meaning.

We almost never do. that's my whole point. As the basis of semiotics is that we can share meaning by some mystical process it has to be bunnies. You can share meaning but trust me it takes frigging ages for each word.

I've said nothing of the sort.

I can say the word Blagsta in my head in different ways as well.

?

But this is exactly the premise of semiotics - symbols do not have inherent meaning.

about how we share meaning.

So it's about how symbols don't have meaning AND how that meaning is shared. Uh huh.

You quite blatantly don't. You're a fool.

How am I being foolish?

[Jim V]

I think since sounds aren't digital we should move past that example

[MrG]

How am I being foolish?

because you cant accept that you are been blatently dellusional

[klintock]

Proof please Mr. G.

[MrG]

i would provide proof but i cant point at you in person

you waffle on about all sorts of things, as proven by blagsta and jim V, you have got it wrong

whenever you are confronted about the error of yoru ways, you go down some errenous tangent, i see threads of understanding from the other people in this thread, you just seem to go on about things without understanding yourself

plus as i posted something from you earlier
I also try not to distort, generalise or delete in my initial thoughts on a topic but leave that whole part of the process out and jump in halfway. It makes for more interesting discussions as people get lost and argumentative.

showing that you intend to mislead and lose people with what you spout

[Blagsta]

We almost never do. that's my whole point. As the basis of semiotics is that we can share meaning by some mystical process it has to be bunnies. You can share meaning but trust me it takes frigging ages for each word.


If we never share meaning then communication is impossible. Since communication is possible, we must therefore be able to share some meaning. However the fundamental premise of semiotics is that symbols have an effect on people and don't have meanings in and of themselves - the meaning arises from cultural and social convention.


?

How you get from that what you did, I have no idea. I was illustrating how absurd your point about audio being digital was.

So it's about how symbols don't have meaning AND how that meaning is shared. Uh huh.

Sorry, what? :confused:

How am I being foolish?

You seem incapable of understanding anything.

[klintock]

showing that you intend to mislead and lose people with what you spout

Well, I was more making sure you would look a complete prick if you did add a PM to the thread. Which you have done twice.

I also try not to distort, generalise or delete in my initial thoughts on a topic but leave that whole part of the process out and jump in halfway

Would it really help if I just wrote out the meta model questions and left you to it?

[MrG]

Well, I was more making sure you would look a complete prick if you did add a PM to the thread. Which you have done twice.

so you are quite happily admitting to the act of intending to mislead me for your own devious and dellusional purposes?

touche i have you there

[MrG]

Well, I was more making sure you would look a complete prick if you did add a PM to the thread. Which you have done twice.

your the only one thats looking like a prick at the moment

[klintock]

If we never share meaning then communication is impossible

Correct. Complete communication is almost impossible.

the meaning arises from cultural and social convention.

As each individual will have a different meaning this can't be true.

You seem incapable of understanding anything.

And you seem incapable of explaining anything.


I was illustrating how absurd your point about audio being digital was.

Show me how it is analogue.

[MrG]

you dont seem to understand that his aim was to disprove yours, and then when you have been disproved, try and find some stability in something new

you are the one who needs to explain what it is now you have been wrong, seen as you were the one who stated alledged fact in the first place

[Blagsta]

Correct. Complete communication is almost impossible.

Well yes, but thats such a truism as to be useless. The fact is that communication does take place to a good enough degree most of the time. Look around you, watch telly, read a book, listen to the radio.

As each individual will have a different meaning this can't be true.

*sigh*
See above.

And you seem incapable of explaining anything.

No one else on this thread is having trouble with my posts. Only you it seems.



Show me how it is analogue.

Well it is analogue. Digital means that something exists in discrete states or units. Sound is a continously varying waveform, analogue. Read those definitions you posted.

[klintock]

Well it is analogue. Digital means that something exists in discrete states or units. Sound is a continously varying waveform, analogue. Read those definitions you posted.

What are you, a whale?

You start off silent, then you turn the sound on - then you run through the sound by varying pitch, tone etc along strict rules and discrete steps to form the word you want - and then you are silent.

It goes - ON --stays ON and modifies---OFF. It's digital. It could be argued that it's analogue once it's started but the whole process is itself a digital one.

[Blagsta]

Read those defintions you posted. Sound is not digital. It is analogue. Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.

[Blagsta]

It goes - ON --stays ON and modifies---OFF.

This is where you're going wrong - if somethign modifies in a meaningful way, it is analogue.

An analog or analogue signal is any continuously variable signal. It differs from a digital signal in that small fluctuations in the signal are meaningful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogue

A link which you posted. Maybe you should read the links you post.

[klintock]

>sigh<

An analog or analogue signal is any continuously variable signal

Do you speak continuously? Are you a whale? Are you doing this on porpoise?

You are silent. Sound is "off". Then you speak. Sound is "on". Then you shut up. Sound is "off"

You are either speaking - "1" or you are not -"0".

Does this get us any nearer you acceptance that semiotics is bunnies, btw?

[MrG]

but the whole discussion is that we are on about the relation between words and meanings

the question is about speech itsself, not wether we are sepaking or not

[Jim V]

Whether something can be on or off has nothing to do with digital / analogue - you seem to be saying sound is binary?

Though god knows why the hell I'm replying to someone who is describing heard sounds as digital

[Blagsta]

>sigh<



Do you speak continuously? Are you a whale? Are you doing this on porpoise?

You are silent. Sound is "off". Then you speak. Sound is "on". Then you shut up. Sound is "off"

You are either speaking - "1" or you are not -"0".

Does this get us any nearer you acceptance that semiotics is bunnies, btw?

Oh for fucks sake. You stated that sound was digital. I've shown you that it isn't. Yes, words are discrete units, but not always when spoken, a lot of people run words together, nowharrimean? Sound is not digital, minute variations in sound impart meaning, therefore it is not digital, it is analogue.
See, this is why I think you're foolish - you'll argue your point even when you've been shown to be totally wrong. That's the action of a fool.

[klintock]

Oh for fucks sake. You stated that sound was digital. I've shown you that it isn't.

Yes, words are discrete units,

Make yer mind up.

Sound is not digital, minute variations in sound impart meaning, therefore it is not digital, it is analogue.

I thought meaning was in the "sign" and not the "signifier"?

minute variations in sound impart meaning

But you can only do one of them at once, hence it's digital. You can either use tonality "x" or not use tonality "x" you can't so both. Hence - digital.

See, this is why I think you're foolish - you'll argue your point even when you've been show to be totally wrong. That's the action of a fool.

You've shown nothing of the sort. you are also confusing action with actor again.

[Blagsta]

You haven't actually read any of those links you posted have you?

[klintock]

Given that i have quoted them three times already that's a dim assertion.

[Blagsta]

I'm truly astounded, really, that anyone can actually be this stupid and obstinate. Its been shown that sound is not digital, why are you arguing that it is? Are you one of those people that argue black is white just for the hell of it?
You're weird.

[Blagsta]

You haven't read the thread either have you?

I thought meaning was in the "sign" and not the "signifier"?


I dunno where you got that from, its not in anything I wrote, nor in any of those links about semiotics that you or I posted. Do you just make things up to try and prove a point? Whats the matter with you?

[klintock]

No seriously, I read the links and came to the conclusion that language was a digital system. As stuff either "means" something or it doesn't it falls firmly into 1/0 processing. As you are either speaking or slient, it's a digital system. As neurologists would describe it as a digital system then I will join them.

Are you one of those people that argue black is white just for the hell of it

Sometimes I do but not today.

Back to Semiotics?

[Blagsta]

Which neurologists describe language as a digital system?

[Blagsta]

Anyway, you were claiming that sound is digital. It isn't. Accept that you're wrong and move on.

[Blagsta]

As stuff either "means" something or it doesn't it falls firmly into 1/0 processing.

Hang on, you said earlier

Stuff doen't "mean" anything, it only has an effect.

[Blagsta]

"pwned" is the expression, I believe :D

[klintock]

Yeah stuff either "means" something or it doesn't. I think it never does but you have another opinion.

I think that speech has an effect, which isn't the same as "meaning".

Anyway, you were claiming that sound is digital. It isn't. Accept that you're wrong and move on.

Sure, no problem. I accept fully and completely that I haven't been proven wrong yet. Equally I haven't convincingly proved the case for it being digital either (to you anyway). Who knows, perhaps speech has elements of both. :thumb:

Which neurologists describe language as a digital system?

None, that I am aware of. It wouldn't make any difference to the argument anyway but I had a suspicion I wanted to check out. Try google and see what shakes out I suggest.

[Blagsta]

As you are either speaking or slient

So meaning can't be expressed with a sigh, a grunt, a snort, a laugh, a sob?

[klintock]

Oh all right then -

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:M8ypqr0e17kJ:www.ida.liu.se/~ssomc/papers/Nelfelt.pdf+language+visual+speech+analogue&hl=en

Sign languages as well as the non verbalcommunication of spoken face-to-face interaction isbased on visual gestures of different kinds such as,manual gestures, mimetic expressions and bodyposture. These kinds of expressive behaviours areextremely well suited for analogue representation

This potential for analogue representation is notavailable to spoken languages or, at least only to avery minor degree.

:p

[Blagsta]

Well 10/10 for stubborness, 0/10 for intelligence.

Yeah stuff either "means" something or it doesn't. I think it never does

Are you denying that you wrote "As stuff either "means" something or it doesn't it falls firmly into 1/0 processing"? If it never means anything, how can it be binary? If can only be one value, it ain't binary.

but you have another opinion.

What do you think my opinion is?

I think that speech has an effect, which isn't the same as "meaning".

Yes, meaning derives from the effect of speech. Speech is the signifier which denotes the signified.

Sure, no problem. I accept fully and completely that I haven't been proven wrong yet.

But you have. Read the links you posted.

Equally I haven't convincingly proved the case for it being digital either (to you anyway).

There is no case to prove.

Who knows, perhaps speech has elements of both. :thumb:

Illogical nonsense.

None, that I am aware of. It wouldn't make any difference to the argument anyway but I had a suspicion I wanted to check out. Try google and see what shakes out I suggest.

Are you denying that you wrote "As neurologists would describe it as a digital system then I will join them."?

[Blagsta]

Oh all right then -

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:M8ypqr0e17kJ:www.ida.liu.se/~ssomc/papers/Nelfelt.pdf+language+visual+speech+analogue&hl=en





:p

Potentiality is not the same as actuality.


I love the way the posts you use to prove your points actually do the opposite. :D

[klintock]

Oh all right then -

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:...+analogue&hl=en

Sign languages as well as the non verbalcommunication of spoken face-to-face interaction isbased on visual gestures of different kinds such as,manual gestures, mimetic expressions and bodyposture. These kinds of expressive behaviours areextremely well suited for analogue representation

This potential for analogue representation is notavailable to spoken languages or, at least only to avery minor degree.

:p

(Just in case you missed it the first time)

[Blagsta]

I saw it. It doesn't back up your argument in any way, shape or form.

[Blagsta]

Its also quite amusing that its a paper on semiotics. :D

[klintock]

Shall I quote some more then?

discreet units of spoken languages

Likewise in spoken sentences or phrases the only possible order between the words is temporally linear, whichmakes it impossible to give the type of detailed analogue descriptions of spatial properties........

[Blagsta]

Yes, I read it. You're using a paper on semiotics (which you think is drivel) to prove your point about languages being digital (which it doesn't say). Sorry, run that by me again, I think I missed something.

[klintock]

Yes, I read it. You're using a paper on semiotics (which you think is drivel) to prove your point about languages being digital (which it doesn't say). Sorry, run that by me again, I think I missed something.

Yes I think it's rather neat.

Do you think semiotics is drivel? That's the key point you see. It's like using the bible to argue with a priest.

There are other systems than analogue and digital? Isn't it a bit late to start introducing them now?

The article distinctly calls speech a "discreet" system i.e. a digital one. It also points out that it isn't analogue on a number of occasions.

Leave you with this little pearler from our mate at the linguistics department. -
Spoken words, with a few exceptions have no similarity to that which they represent.

[Blagsta]

Yes I think it's rather neat.

Do you think semiotics is drivel? That's the key point you see. It's like using the bible to argue with a priest.

You're using something that you think is drivel to prove your point? Sorry, run that by me again, it still doesn't make sense.

There are other systems than analogue and digital? Isn't it a bit late to start introducing them now?

Where have I done that? :confused:

The article distinctly calls speech a "discreet" system i.e. a digital one. It also points out that it isn't analogue on a number of occasions.

You were arguing earlier that the written word was "analogue", you were arguing that sound is "digital". This paper does not in any way back up your argument, its about sign language and spoken language. Yes, it says that words are discrete units, but as I said earlier, people run their words together, innit? Words being discrete units is not the same as language being digital. In a digital system, each discrete unit can only represent one thing - we know this is not true of words, they can take on very different meanings depending on how they are spoken, as you pointed out earlier with your bizarre point about a lover or a brickie saying my name. In a digital system, each unit has the same value, always. 1 always means 1, 0 always means 0.

Leave you with this little pearler from our mate at the linguistics department. -

Yes, that has never been in doubt, its what I've said all along.

[klintock]

Wow. Denial level approaching critical.

You're using something that you think is drivel to prove your point? Sorry, run that by me again, it still doesn't make sense.

Do you think it is drivel? That's the important point. I make the analogy of arguing with a priest using the bible when that's the only way to argue with him/her effectively because they are refusing all other forms of communication.

Where have I done that?

You haven't which is going to be important in a minute or two. I was just confirming with you.

people run their words together,

Creating a new digital word.

In a digital system, each discrete unit can only represent one thing

yes, go on....

we know this is not true of words, they can take on very different meanings depending on how they are spoken

Bugger you fluffed it. Each new type of spoken word is a brand new spoken word. Which can either be spoken or not spoken. I.e. it's a digital system.

In a digital system, each unit has the same value

Yes.

1 always means 1, 0 always means 0

And I love you spoken with an angry tone of voice always means I love you with an angry tone of voice. To say I love you in any other way is to say a different word. Which can either be spoken or not spoken, so it's a digital system still.

Yes, that has never been in doubt, its what I've said all along.

It is? Weird.

[Blagsta]

After a bit of thought, I can see what you're driving at, but you're still wrong.


The form of "word" can have both digital and analogue qualities "Word" but the "meaning" remains constant if it is visual but cannot as easily if it is auditory.


This for instance is all arse about tit. If you're arguing that the visual is analogue, then surely a small change in the form of the visual would change the meaning and if the auditory was digital, then a small change would not have any effect on meaning. You have said "but the "meaning" remains constant if it is visual" which rather contradicts yourself and anyway isn't true, as any graphic designer will tell you. As for the auditory - as has already been demonstrated, a small change in the form can utterly change the meaning and from your earlier link - " It differs from a digital signal in that small fluctuations in the signal are meaningful."

Of course, no doubt you'll contradict yourself, be inconsistent and illogical, write things and then deny writing them a few minutes later, in fact anything to avoid admitting you're wrong.

[Blagsta]

Wow. Denial level approaching critical.



Do you think it is drivel? That's the important point. I make the analogy of arguing with a priest using the bible when that's the only way to argue with him/her effectively because they are refusing all other forms of communication.



You haven't which is going to be important in a minute or two. I was just confirming with you.



Creating a new digital word.



yes, go on....



Bugger you fluffed it. Each new type of spoken word is a brand new spoken word. Which can either be spoken or not spoken. I.e. it's a digital system.



Yes.



And I love you spoken with an angry tone of voice always means I love you with an angry tone of voice. To say I love you in any other way is to say a different word. Which can either be spoken or not spoken, so it's a digital system still.



It is? Weird.


Amazing, you've contradicted, been inconsistent. denied and everything I said you would do, before I even wrote it!

[Blagsta]

Wow. Denial level approaching critical.



Do you think it is drivel? That's the important point. I make the analogy of arguing with a priest using the bible when that's the only way to argue with him/her effectively because they are refusing all other forms of communication.

Personally, I wouldn't accept the premise of the Bible to prove my atheism.

You haven't which is going to be important in a minute or two. I was just confirming with you.

Eh? :confused:

[QUOTE=klintock]Creating a new digital word.

How can discrete units be run together? It makes no logical sense. They're either discrete or they're not.

yes, go on....



Bugger you fluffed it. Each new type of spoken word is a brand new spoken word. Which can either be spoken or not spoken. I.e. it's a digital system.

Eh? So tone of voice makes a different word? How exactly? Something is either discrete or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Yes.



And I love you spoken with an angry tone of voice always means I love you with an angry tone of voice. To say I love you in any other way is to say a different word. Which can either be spoken or not spoken, so it's a digital system still.


You're crazy. The word "love" is the word "love" is the word "love". The form of it changes (as I pointed out in the post above). You're contradicting yourself left right and centre.

It is? Weird.

Maybe if you actually read things and weren't so convinced of your own intellectual superiority, you might learn something.

[klintock]

This for instance is all arse about tit. If you're arguing that the visual is analogue, then surely a small change in the form of the visual would change the meaning and if the auditory was digital, then a small change would not have any effect on meaning. You have said "but the "meaning" remains constant if it is visual" which rather contradicts yourself and anyway isn't true, as any graphic designer will tell you. As for the auditory - as has already been demonstrated, a small change in the form can utterly change the meaning and from your earlier link - " It differs from a digital signal in that small fluctuations in the signal are meaningful."

Only if words actually have "meaning". I don't think they do. The fact that form can change the "meaning" of a symbol or word means that "meaning" isn't a property of the word or symbol.

a small change in the form can utterly change the meaning

So it's a brand new word, not a modulated or changed one. Which is then digital either beig spoken or not being spoken. Either 1 or 0.

[Blagsta]

Only if words actually have "meaning". I don't think they do. The fact that form can change the "meaning" of a symbol or word means that "meaning" isn't a property of the word or symbol.

Yes, we both accept that words don't have inherent meanings, meaning is arbitary. You're being contradictory however. You say that "the "meaning" remains constant if it is visual but cannot as easily if it is auditory." but then accept that it doesn't. Can't you see this contraciction?

So it's a brand new word, not a modulated or changed one. Which is then digital either beig spoken or not being spoken. Either 1 or 0.

So the word love and the word LOVE are two different words? In semiotics, they would be considered two different signs, yes. But two different words?

[klintock]

Thank you.

Yes, we both accept that words don't have inherent meanings, meaning is arbitary. You're being contradictory however. You say that "the "meaning" remains constant if it is visual but cannot as easily if it is auditory." but then accept that it doesn't. Can't you see this contraciction?

Only for an individual. Semiotics says that "meaning" is shared. This cannot be. What contradiction?

The word love and the word love have the same "meaning". If you were to whisper "love" and then shout "love" at the top of your lungs, the "meaning" would definitely change. So they are therefore different words.

It's easier if you think of a tonal language like some Chinese dialects, where the same word "means" many different things dependant on how it is said.

[Jim V]

the word love and the word love are the same word - it doesn't matter how much you use the font size button.

It doesn't become a different word in a different context, it changes what it signifies.

Plus the meaning does change for the visual.

A gollywog toy on the tv being valued on the Antiques Roadshow would have a very different meaning to a gollywog toy being handed to a small boy by a member of the KKK at a lynching and would illict a very different response. (well enless you were extremely autistic)

[Blagsta]

Only for an individual. Semiotics says that "meaning" is shared. This cannot be. What contradiction?

If meaning is not shared in some way, how is communication possible? How is art, literature, poetry, drama, cinema etc possible? As to how it is shared, well i guess we'll have to explore structuralism, something I haven't got the brainpower for at the moment (and no doubt you've never heard of it and will dismiss it as "bollocks" without finding out anything about it). Here's a tip - if you want to discuss philosophy, find out something about it first.

[klintock]

the word love and the word love are the same word - it doesn't matter how much you use the font size button.

and

Plus the meaning does change for the visual.

A gollywog toy on the tv being valued on the Antiques Roadshow would have a very different meaning to a gollywog toy being handed to a small boy by a member of the KKK at a lynching and would illict a very different response. (well enless you were extremely autistic)

So the "meaning" is stored in the individual. Okay. You have hit on what i think is the whole of this. You "illict a very different response". This is what language does. It does not convey "meaning" it gets responses.

This is how "communication" occurs. I shout "fire" and you leave the building. The purpose of communication is not "understanding" it's to get results. Usually to induce a frame of mind in whoever you are talking to.

If meaning is not shared in some way, how is communication possible? How is art, literature, poetry, drama, cinema etc possible?

Because you have learned your responses. As long as a majority have similar responses to the stimuli then the pretense of "understanding" is maintained. If a madman comes along and questions the existence of one of the key "response" words, oh let's say "Britain" then there can be no "meaningful" response. He's just "mad". Why? Because he keeps hitting the trigger that will prevent understanding just by continued use of the word.

Here's a tip - if you want to discuss philosophy, find out something about it first.

Thank you for the tip. I will go and read about "structralism", find the flaw and report back.

[Blagsta]

and





So the "meaning" is stored in the individual. Okay. You have hit on what i think is the whole of this. You "illict a very different response". This is what language does. It does not convey "meaning" it gets responses.

So you're denying the existence of meaning now? :eek:

This is how "communication" occurs. I shout "fire" and you leave the building. The purpose of communication is not "understanding" it's to get results. Usually to induce a frame of mind in whoever you are talking to.

Utter nonsense. Do you actually ever leave your house and talk to people? If you shout fire I wouldn't necesserily leave the building. It would depend on who was shouting it and where. I would look for the meaning in the shout of "fire". If it was one of my mentally unstable clients I wouldn't take it as seriously as if it was my manager. Things do have meaning, they don't just elicit responses. Your understanding is simplistic behaviourist nonsense.

Because you have learned your responses. As long as a majority have similar responses to the stimuli then the pretense of "understanding" is maintained

The more I read, the more I think you have autism or a personality disorder. Do you wonder why you have difficulty putting your point across? Have you ever thought its because the majority of people don't actually experience the world in the same simplistic way as you do? Most people do share meaning, most people respond to art, music, literature etc with more than a conditioned response - they respond with feeling, with emotions. These emotions are uinversal across humankind (unless, as I say, you're autistic or have some kind of personality disorder). That's where shared meaning can come from. Yes, the signs and symbols which impart meaning are part of a shared social convention and are different across societies, but this does not mean that meaning isn't shared.

If a madman comes along and questions the existence of one of the key "response" words, oh let's say "Britain" then there can be no "meaningful" response. He's just "mad". Why? Because he keeps hitting the trigger that will prevent understanding just by continued use of the word.

Yes, I think you probably do have a mental health problem if you can't see that people agree on things for convenience sake. You may question the validity of them, but to deny that people do it is, well, rather odd.

Thank you for the tip. I will go and read about "structralism", find the flaw and report back.

Such arrogance! You can't get your head round semiotics and critique that, so how you're going to do it with structuralism I haven't a clue! You're fucking deluded pal.

[freethepeeps]

It would depend on who was shouting it and where. I would look for the meaning in the shout of "fire". If it was one of my mentally unstable clients I wouldn't take it as seriously as if it was my manager.

:eek2:

[Blagsta]

:eek2:

Just trying to illustrate a point (maybe not very well). We weigh up the meaning of things not merely by conditioned responses but by who says them, the context, what they may have done before etc. That is, things have meaning to us, something that klintock is denying.

[klintock]

So you're denying the existence of meaning now?

Shared meaning.

Utter nonsense. Do you actually ever leave your house and talk to people? If you shout fire I wouldn't necesserily leave the building. It would depend on who was shouting it and where. I would look for the meaning in the shout of "fire". If it was one of my mentally unstable clients I wouldn't take it as seriously as if it was [QUOTE]my manager. Things do have meaning, they don't just elicit responses. Your understanding is simplistic behaviourist nonsense.

Do you ever talk to people?

You were born knowing context, right? You didn't learn that bit as well?

Words have "meaning" AND your response changes depending on the person speaking?

The more I read, the more I think you have autism or a personality disorder

Nope not at all.

Do you wonder why you have difficulty putting your point across?

Nope. I know why I have difficulty. When and where I do.

Have you ever thought its because the majority of people don't actually experience the world in the same simplistic way as you do?

Again with the agreement frame for determining what is actually happening.

These emotions are uinversal across humankind

Do behave.

Most people do share meaning, most people respond to art, music, literature etc with more than a conditioned response

Proof that we share "meaning" please.

Yes, the signs and symbols which impart meaning are part of a shared social convention and are different across societies, but this does not mean that meaning isn't shared.

You have just said that "meaning" of a word changes depending on context even for yourself. Make yer mind up.

people agree on things for convenience sake

But you are more likely to obey your "manager". How do you know that there can be "managers"?

Such arrogance! You can't get your head round semiotics and critique that

Shall we start again or do you just want to read the thread again?

That is, things have meaning to us, something that klintock is denying.

Ohhhh no. Things can have "meaning" for you. You cannot share "meaning" without a hell of a lot of effort, far more than "semiotics" allows for.

[Blagsta]

This is like debating with a religous fundamentalist. Even when presented with the evidence of the illogicality and inconsistency of your argument, you just see it as proof of your point of view. You're crazy.

[klintock]

This is like debating with a religous fundamentalist. Even when presented with the evidence of the illogicality and inconsistency of your argument, you just see it as proof of your point of view.

Funny. I was thinking the same thing.

[Blagsta]

http://www.atri38.dsl.pipex.com/hidden.jpg

[The_Grapes_of_Sloth]

Proof that we share "meaning" please.

The fact that you can have this conversation at all?

[klintock]

The fact that you can have this conversation at all?

There is some overlap, I agree. But you are talking about "conversation" and you will "mean" something different than I do. Basically, you are writing in your own private language and I am reading in my own private language and there is no way of telling if they are the same.

Also semiotics states quite clearly that "meaning" is shared between many different individuals then semiotics must be horseshit.

To give an example of what I mean. -

Think of the word confusion -

What did you think of? A sound, a picture, a smell, what sense?

How much of that sense? How loud a sound? How much treble, how much bass> How big a picture and where in space was it? Can you feel heat or cold on your skin? How many pictures?

Do you think that the answers between any two individuals will be the same? Are my answers to those questions going to be the same as yours?

So words and signs cannot have "shared meaning" (unless you go through that process for every word) and therefore semiotics is bollocks.

[The_Grapes_of_Sloth]

you are writing in your own private language and I am reading in my own private language and there is no way of telling if they are the same.

Yes there is. Imagine in the next room I have placed a bowl containing three balls - a red ball, a blue ball and a green ball. I tell you to go and fetch the blue ball from the bowl. Barring some sort of physical or mental defect, you'll be able to easily identify what it is that I want and bring it back.

[Blagsta]

Klintock really needs to read the links he posts
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/semiomean/semio1.html

You might think that the distinction between sound image (signifier) and concept (signified) doesn't get us very far forward in trying to figure out what we mean by 'meaning'. You're probably right. After all, it's no easier to say what the concept of 'the' or 'of' is than to say what thing those words correspond to. And, of course, I don't know if the concepts 'city', 'woman', 'man' in your head are the same as those in mine. As the British linguist, David Crystal, puts it:

Some words do have meanings which are relatively easy to conceptualise, but we certainly do not have neat visual images corresponding to every word we say. Nor is there any guarantee that a concept which might come to mind when I use the word table is going to be the same as the one you, the reader, might bring to mind.

Crystal (1987)

While that's quite correct, the fact remains that it also explains why Saussure's ideas took things forward. His notion of the sign places the emphasis on our individual 'concepts' corresponding to the sound images. Your mental picture of a car (indeed, for all I know, not only a mental picture, but also a mental smell, mental noise or whatever) will not be the same as mine, for a variety of reasons. (For a discussion of some of those reasons, see the section on Meaning).

Saussure shifted the emphasis from the notion that there is some kind of 'real world' out there to which we all refer in words which mean the same to all of us. Fairly obviously, we in our language community have much of this real world in common, otherwise we couldn't communicate, but, for various reasons, the 'real world' which we articulate through our signs will be different for every one of us. (It is for this reason that Saussure saw semiology as a branch of social psychology.)

Saussure saw language as being an ordered system of signs whose meanings are arrived at arbitrarily by a cultural convention. There is no necessary reason why a pig should be called a pig. It doesn't look sound or smell any more like the sequence of sounds 'p-i-g' than a banana looks, smells, tastes or feels like the sequence of sounds 'banana'. It is only because we in our language group agree that it is called a 'pig' that that sequence of sounds refers to the animal in the real world. You and your circle of friends could agree always to refer to pigs as 'squerdlishes' if you want. As long as there is general agreement, that's no problem - until you start talking about squerdlishes to people who don't share the same convention.

Saussure freely admits that when he is stressing the arbitrariness of the sign, he is stressing something which is actually fairly obvious. As he sees it, though, the problem is that people haven't paid enough attention to the implications of the fact that sign-systems are arbitrary.

Since it is the case that the codes (see Code) we use are the result of conventions arrived at by the users of those codes, then it is reasonable to suppose that the values of the users will in some way be incorporated into those codes. They will, for example, have developed signs for those things they agree to be important, they will probably have developed a whole array of signs to draw the distinctions between those things which are of particular significance in their culture.

In other words, you might reasonably expect that the ideologies prevalent in those cultures will have been incorporated into the codes used:

...'reality' is always encoded, or rather the only way we can perceive and make sense of reality is by the codes of our culture. There may be an objective, empiricist reality out there, but there is no universal, objective way of perceiving and making sense of it. What passes for reality in any culture is the product of the culture's codes, so 'reality' is always already encoded, it is never 'raw'.

Fiske (1987 pp 4-5)

Semiologists generally prefer the term 'reader' to 'receiver' (even of a painting, photograph or film) and often use the term 'text' to 'message'. This implies that receiving a message (i.e. 'reading a text') is an active process of decoding and that that process is socially and culturally conditioned.

One of Saussure's fundamental insights, then, was that sign-systems are arbitrary systems, a set of agreed conventions. Since there is no simple, natural sign=thing relationship between sign systems and reality, it is we who are the active makers of meanings. The sign-systems (or codes) which we use provide us already with sets of meanings (the 'always already encoded' reality which Fiske speaks of). We activate the meanings within the repertoire which the code offers us.

(italics mine)

[klintock]

Yes there is. Imagine in the next room I have placed a bowl containing three balls - a red ball, a blue ball and a green ball. I tell you to go and fetch the blue ball from the bowl. Barring some sort of physical or mental defect, you'll be able to easily identify what it is that I want and bring it back.

Leaving aside the fact that no two eyes see the same way - metamerism.

I do not understand exactly what you mean by "blue ball" until I experience it for myself. Even at this basic level I am misunderstanding you albeit it on certain discrete lines. That may be useful or may not. The important thing is that I respond to your stimulus effectively, not that I take "meaning" from your words.

Blagsta, i will get around to your post when i have ten minutes to spare.

For now though, tell me again how you would prove a "countries" existence under the rules of evidence of a court.

[Jim V]

nope, don't reply about a countries exsistance - that debate was in another thread and everyone said their piece, this is a thread about semiotics, either stick to that topic Klintock or leave this thread

[Blagsta]

klintock's already demonstrated that he's incapable of discussing semiotics

[Jim V]

regardless, doesn't mean the topic can be changed at whim

[Blagsta]

I agree. I've got the lunatic on ignore now anyway, along with his alter ego seeker.

[klintock]

No worries.

The question has been answered because it has been read.

I will move on when I get a minute.

[The_Grapes_of_Sloth]

I will move on when I get a minute.

You believe in "minutes" but not in "countries" (sic)? Weird...

[MrG]

Funny. I was thinking the same thing

he's right about you though

[klintock]

As long as there is general agreement, that's no problem - until you start talking about squerdlishes to people who don't share the same convention. I don't know if the concepts 'city', 'woman', 'man' in your head are the same as those in mine.

I have shown repeatedly that they are different.

Some words do have meanings which are relatively easy to conceptualise

"conceptualise" how?

I have already shown that a word is a trigger for past experience through the senses. So this is bunnies. Or to put it another way - unspecified referntial index - making a conept how and to who in what way?

Nor is there any guarantee that a concept which might come to mind when I use the word table

No, it's guaranteed that you will think of a different one.

His notion of the sign places the emphasis on our individual 'concepts' corresponding to the sound images.

"Sound images" - type of synesthesia otherwise impossible.

Saussure saw language as being an ordered system of signs whose meanings are arrived at arbitrarily by a cultural convention

All individuals hold different meaning and there can be a group meaning as well. Obviously horseshit. You can have a group response but that isn't meaning.

As long as there is general agreement, that's no problem - until you start talking about squerdlishes to people who don't share the same convention.

As long as there is the illusion of agreement due to similar responses then there is no problem. When someone reacts in a different way to the stimulus than his/her fellows then the fact that their is no "meaning" becomes clear.

The rest of it I really can't be bothered demolishing a bit at a time.

You believe in "minutes" but not in "countries" (sic)? Weird...

Nope I don't believe in UFO's either but I can still use the term. See my earlier post about the nature of time - how it's completely subjective.

he's right about you though

Let's bring up a funny point. Despite the knowledge that I have frequently presented reagarding "meaning" Blagsta has never asked me to breakdown mine properly. For all he knows I am talking about what he thinks is confusion. As he has never bothered checking how does he know?

[MrG]

erm he has asked you on a number of times, are you blind?

[klintock]

Really?

Where did he ask me for my internal representation for meaning?

I missed that entirely.

[Yerascrote]

do you realise klintock that every time you type a word on this site and every time you read something on this site, including this post now, you're contradicting everything you "believe" in...it's impossible for anyone to read what i wrote above and think i'm talking about yellow elephants on a bus journey to taiwan...is there now...

[klintock]

.it's impossible for anyone to read what i wrote above and think i'm talking about yellow elephants on a bus journey to taiwan...is there now...

Which is why semiotics is bullshit. It says "meaning" is shared and you have just shown that is bollocks.

[morrocan roll]

so many people chasing the wind ...

[klintock]

so many people chasing the wind ...

Better than sucking it.....

[morrocan roll]

Better than sucking it.....
sucking it is vital for life.

[klintock]

Ah well. In 1800's America it meant dying, but I guess you weren't around then. ;)

You might struggle to find it on google, I forget myself sometimes.

[Yerascrote]

Which is why semiotics is bullshit. It says "meaning" is shared and you have just shown that is bollocks.

how is it bollocks...blagsta already said no one knows how the brain can understand language...how we react to it...you try far far far too hard to understand human logic it's unreal...in reality it's very fucking simplistic..can you not realise this by now?

[Blagsta]

Klintock keeps saying he's shown that semiotics is bollocks - he hasn't. All he's done is shown that he has failed to understand semiotics.

[klintock]

Semiotics

http://st.kem.ru/nlp/rus/glossary.htm

This link explains why it is bullshit clearly.

blagsta already said no one knows how the brain can understand

And I have already pointed out how it actually does.

[morrocan roll]

Semiotics

http://st.kem.ru/nlp/rus/glossary.htm

This link explains why it is bullshit clearly.



And I have already pointed out how it actually does.
there is no such person as blagsta.
there is no such thing as the internet.
you are only a figment of your imagination ...

[Blagsta]

Semiotics

http://st.kem.ru/nlp/rus/glossary.htm

This link explains why it is bullshit clearly.

A link in Russian? How exactly?

And I have already pointed out how it actually does.

No you haven't.

*I don't know why I bothered

[klintock]

you are only a figment of your imagination

Well, yeah obviously. Your name is one of the strongest of response words.

No you haven't.

Third post of the thread.

[Blagsta]

Errr...

Not at all. Whenever I point out that words are just inventions and don't mean anything on their own you bring it up. I did a quick google and it seems to be bollocks to me but there you go.

So, anytime you fancy doing it in future you have your own thread to come to.

Enjoy. ;)

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[klintock]

Apologies Blagsta -

MY third post of the thread. Sorry for the fuck up, my fault entirely.

[Blagsta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

yeah I looked it up. unfortunately the idea that signs/words have more than a personal meaning is ridiculous.

To understand how language works -

I say "fire" you go inside your memory and select some representation of fire in any one of your sensory choices -

You might have seen a fire burning, smelled it, heard the crackle of it, felt the heat or any combination of these inside your mind. This is how we make sense of words. If you were synesthesic you might have tasted it as well. This happens very very quickly.

The command to access that experience does not have to be the word "fire" it can be "fuego" or "cheese". And it is a command. You have to imagine what I write in order to make sense of the words you are currently reading.

Some parts of this are stored in conscious awareness, some parts are stored in unconscious awareness, or in the different hemispheres of the brain. Each word has a meaning to you and to you alone. The fact that others have meanings which are close to yours let's you do cool things like run from a burning building or whatever. Once you get beyond stuff that can be commonly sensed you are talking to yourself alone more often than not.

I will just provide links at this point so you can verify -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational-generative_grammar

http://brain.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/125/2/361

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper1/Ball.html

Semiotics seems to be, on the other hand.......bollocks.


And this means...what exactly? A load of pseudo-scientific shite from you and some links that spectacularly fail to back up your waffle in any way, shape or form. Do you actually read the links you post? or do you just post anything that looks vaguely scientific in the hope of confusing people?

[klintock]

And this means...what exactly? A load of pseudo-scientific shite from you and some links that spectacularly fail to back up your waffle in any way, shape or form. Do you actually read the links you post? or do you just post anything that looks vaguely scientific in the hope of confusing people?

I am sorry?

I thought that you would be able to look at the way you yourself process language.

Or are you really saying that when you read "FIRE" you have no sound, no feeling, no smell, no sensory equivalent in your own internal experience?

Could it be Blagsta that you are that unaware of your own thoughts?

Would you like some help in this regard?

[MrG]

no, but you need help

[Blagsta]

I am sorry?

I thought that you would be able to look at the way you yourself process language.

Or are you really saying that when you read "FIRE" you have no sound, no feeling, no smell, no sensory equivalent in your own internal experience?

Could it be Blagsta that you are that unaware of your own thoughts?

Would you like some help in this regard?

How does what you wrote explain how the brain processes language? All you've done is write some simplistic obvious guff, posted some random links and think you have the answers. You don't, no one really knows how the brain processes perceptions, least of all someone without any post-graduate training in neuroscience and linguistics. You have far too high an opinion of yourself. Get over it.

[klintock]

Which isn't an answer, it's a dismissal. I have to do this all the time Blagsta old hoss with my more naive clients.

Are you saying that you process the word "fire" without seeing something, hearing something etc in your internal experience?

[Blagsta]

But you're not explaining anything. Yes, when I think of fire, all sorts of associations go off in my head. From campfires, to fire engines to a song by REM. So what? Its obvious stuff, what of it?

[klintock]

Huh?

You asked me how language worked. I pointed this out. You said that I hadn't shown how language worked. I pointed this out. Now you are saying that you know how language works and that it's obvious.

Like wtf??!!

So, I say "fire" and it triggers all those associations. Your conscious mind picks the one most fitting to the situation to repond to. Hence language doesn't evoke "meaning" it gets responses. As all "meanings" are processed (by the non dominant hemisphere/unconscious mind) and then an appropriate one is selected consciously for reponse, then signs have ALL "meanings" at the same time.

So semiotics is bunnies.

[MrG]

klintock i think you are lost

[Blagsta]

Huh?

You asked me how language worked. I pointed this out. You said that I hadn't shown how language worked. I pointed this out. Now you are saying that you know how language works and that it's obvious.

Like wtf??!!

So, I say "fire" and it triggers all those associations. Your conscious mind picks the one most fitting to the situation to repond to. Hence language doesn't evoke "meaning" it gets responses. As all "meanings" are processed (by the non dominant hemisphere/unconscious mind) and then an appropriate one is selected consciously for reponse, then signs have ALL "meanings" at the same time.

So semiotics is bunnies.


Oh dear, you're running round in circles. You seriously overestimate your own intelligence, and you need to actually start reading the links that you post, 'cos amusingly enough, semiotics and you are actually in more agreement than you think...

[klintock]

Oh dear, you're running round in circles. You seriously overestimate your own intelligence, and you need to actually start reading the links that you post, 'cos amusingly enough, semiotics and you are actually in more agreement than you think

Overestimate? Nahhh.

What do you think of semiotics, Blagsta?

[Blagsta]

Overestimate? Nahhh.

Going by the illogical, inconsistent and badly thought out nonsense you post on here, I'd say so.

What do you think of semiotics, Blagsta?

I think its a useful tool for thinking about language, meaning and culture.

[klintock]

Going by the illogical, inconsistent and badly thought out nonsense you post on here, I'd say so

Does it occur to you that I know I am stupid?

I think its a useful tool for thinking about language, meaning and culture.

Really? I think it's bollox. ;)

[Blagsta]

Does it occur to you that I know I am stupid?

Yes. Arrogance is often a cover up for inadequacy.

Really? I think it's bollox. ;)

You haven't explained why though.

[klintock]

Yes. Arrogance is often a cover up for inadequacy.

Huh?

I am definite,