Gary F,
I was responding to your statement: "Bits (as the name implies!) can
only be small pieces of symbols in the semiotic sense of the word
"symbol"; they are not symbols."
Of course, a bit is not a symbol or a piece of symbol. It is a
measure of information. I was trying to indicate that
:hpat...@roadrunner.com]
Sent: 5-Oct-14 3:53 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce List'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7097] Re: Natural Propositions,
Chapter 3.6
At 01:15 PM 10/5/2014, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
>Nobody (least of all Peirce!) is naming bits "symbols" or &quo
At 01:15 PM 10/5/2014, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Nobody (least of all Peirce!) is naming bits "symbols" or
"legisigns". Bits (as the name implies!) can only be small pieces of
symbols in the semiotic sense of the word "symbol"; they are not
symbols in the Peircean sense because a bit by itself, out
Howard,
Nobody (least of all Peirce!) is naming bits "symbols" or "legisigns". Bits
(as the name implies!) can only be small pieces of symbols in the semiotic
sense of the word "symbol"; they are not symbols in the Peircean sense
because a bit by itself, out of any context, will not and cannot
