On Dec 9, 2012, at 2:52 PM, [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 12/9/12 12:44:36 PM, [email protected] writes: > > "just because the listener or reader has no knowledge of the > referent does not mean he or she cannot produce a notion in response to the > word." > > I wrote: A shepherd in the Andes "could conjure effectively no notion at > all
I thought the guy was in "remote western China." Did I not conjure a correct notion? >> (and >>> certainly nothing "informational")" if someone utters to him the sound, >> "Cleopatra". >> > I didn't mean he couldn't hear the utterance, couldn't determine if the > speaker is female or male, etc. I consciouslessly depended on my phrases > "effectively no notion" and "nothing informational" to convey the shepherd > wouldn't "understand" the utterance. But Michael is justified in saying the > shepherd would certainly come away with some notions or other. You're back to an old conundrum you haven't resolved: how does anyone confirm that another person has a serviceably similar notion as you do? You all have to trade proxies, namely, words, pictures, gestures, etc. And you all have to be individually confident that the proxies remain stable enough to proceed with the communications. Cheerskep, I don't think that in the years we have all been discussing this general topic that you have addressed that tertium quid, that entity that exists between the speaker and the listener, or more accurately, between the speaker's mind and the listener's mind. You have continually focused on the NISH (notion in someone's head) and given practically no attention to how that is conveyed between parties. You just declare that an Andean shepherd said "Cleopatra" and the remote western Chinese guy thought of foopgoom. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
