Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Meanings are never converted into anything in a digital system; they are >recreated based on the symbols used in the system. Thus, the word "tree" is not >meaning in itself; it is a symbol for meaning. The actual meaning is up to the >reader and writer, not the word. WRONG. You must understand that a person can only have an understanding of the word in context. The word is used. Who says to a child, "this is called food" "this is called Mommy"? It's eat your food and come to mommy or whatever. The words have no meaning or substance by themselves Nobody has free range to determine any meanings that don't presuppose certainties. This is one reason why digital systems make >loss, error-free communication possible--they don't try to transmit meaning, >they only transmit mutually-agreed-upon pointers to meaning. The meaning is transmitted as it is inseparable. > >> I don't think it is possible to come up with a rule system >> similar to that with an AVI movie. > >Ever studied cryptography? > >> I suspect that biblical scholars are far from agreeing >> at to the meanings of the symbols. >>> > > -- Anthony