[ExI] Semiotics and Computability

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Syntactic order exists in the CR, just as syntactic order exists in your computer. But syntactic order does not give understanding. Think of how the grammatical order of a sentence does not reveal the meanings of the words.

There exists hundreds antiquity language writings, many of which have
not been deciphered yet.  Are you saying that there is no way to ever
unravel those patterns of markings to glean insight from ancient
writing?  Would you have acid-washed the walls of Egypt because the
pictures are irrelevant scribbling?  Would you have destroyed the
Rosetta Stone because it held no purpose after you destroyed the other
writings you couldn't understand?

I would concede that the dots in a pointillist painting have no
distinction between "blue dot" in a person's head and the "blue dot"
in the sky when examined too closely and without context.  In the same
way, there's no distinction between an atom of Hydrogen in a molecule
of water and one fueling the sun - so examining the hydrogen atom
bears no meaning to its purpose in either a beverage or a sunny day.
Could we agree that the scope of language can create contexts that may
be simply be invalid and too much focus on invalid contexts generates
only confusion?