Template:M intro design symbol processing: Difference between revisions

Template:M intro design symbol processing (view source)

Revision as of 17:17, 19 October 2023

1,364 bytes added , 19 October 2023

→‎How we communicate

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,892

edits

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :— [[Steven Pinker]], {{br|The Language Instinct}}}}
-The same thing is happening when humans communicate. When the JC commits symbols to page, like this one, he brings his cultural apparatus to the task: an idiosyncratic grip of the English language, a particular cultural upbringing, formal education, informal education from the school of life. Should anyone ever read this, they will bring ''their'' cultural apparatus — just as idiosyncratic — to the task of making sense of the JC’s string of symbols. This “making sense of it” is as creative an act as was the JC’s laying down of the symbols in the first place. For a reader to make any sense of the JC’s windbaggery at all, she must share ''some'' of the JC’s cultural apparatus — a non-English speaker would derive no meaning from it at all — but she certainly won’t share ''all of it''. The idea that there is a perfect, hi-fidelity transmission of ideas between our heads — that “we can shape events in other’s brains with exquisite precision” — is plainly absurd.
+The same thing is happening when we communicate. When the JC commits symbols to page, like this one, for better or worse he brings his own “cultural apparatus” to the task: an idiosyncratic grasp of the English language, a particular cultural upbringing, and formal and informal education from the schools of the academy and hard knocks. Should anyone (else) ever read this, they will bring ''their'' unique cultural apparatus — no less idiosyncratic — to the task of making sense of this odd string of symbols.
+This “making sense of it” is just as creative an act as the original string assembly. Arguably, more so: at least I had ''some'' idea what I was trying to say, however confused I may have been about saying it. For another reader to make sense of this windbaggery at all, she must first share ''some'' of the JC’s cultural apparatus — to a non-English speaker it would would mean nothing at all — but she certainly won’t share ''all of it''. Almost certainly there will “basis” between transmitted and received meaning.
+So Steven Pinker’s proposition, that there is a perfect, hi-fidelity transmission of ideas between our heads — that “we can shape events in other’s brains with exquisite precision” — is wishful rationalism. But it misses what is so special about human communication. We do not read each other inertly, as if scanning barcodes: the language interaction creates a dynamic new thing between us that we can play with, refine and adjust for the future. Language does not chain us to the past: 8t opens a door to the future. Language is design space. It is how we keep the game going.
 Depending on ''why'' we write, we are more or less intent on conveying a specific message: a commercial lawyer is [[There are no metaphors in a trust deed|''extremely'' intent on that]]; a rock lyricist, who benefits from wistful ambiguity, much less so, and will happily string together [[Stairway to Heaven|pages of doggerel]] which means little but can be made, by wanton fans, to mean anything.
+By interacting with the world in this way, we change it. Our world, after a linguistic interaction, is permanent altered as has the “work” — as long as we regard the work as the shared cultural experience, and not the code compiled on GitHub.
+This is very different to the symbol processing routine of a Turing machine.
+I am writing on a Turing machine: each keystroke executes a new command that the machine obeys, producing text on screen. The processor in this phone needs not understand anything. It does not need a theory of the world. It does not need shared culture with me or this application; there are no puzzles involved: no world need be created. It follows binary instructions: if this, then that.
 A [[Turing machine]] interpreting a linear string of symbols is no such thing. It leaves its material untouched, uninterpreted, unbettered. It does not interact with its environment the way human languages oblige us to.