[ExI] communication

[Gadersd]

> In classical conditionings, when a bell rings, the dog salivates.  Is this communication?  Or symbolic grounding or some such?

I am growing increasingly weary of all these hazy word games. One can define language and communication in many different nonequivalent ways. The reality is in the physics, yet some of us are completely ignoring physics and instead engaging in philosophical semantic masturbation.

I wish we would purge vague terms such as “understanding”, “qualia”, and so on in favor of objective language.

> On Apr 25, 2023, at 10:50 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> I just want simple answers, not a  bunch of new terms.  
> 
> In classical conditionings, when a bell rings, the dog salivates.  Is this communication?  Or symbolic grounding or some such?
> 
> Psychology is the worst at inventing new terms.  Some new sciences are doing it too, making relating to old terms difficult.
> 
> IMO, if a stimulus provokes a response, communication has occurred.  Sender; medium; reception and response.  Information has occurred, transferred, and caused actions.  Why can't a bell ringing be called a language?  If instead you used saying the word 'bell' as a CS, would that qualify?
> 
> Definitions are very difficult:  you have to say what something is and what it isn't, and how it is similar to but different from other terms.  If we stuck to operational definitions it would greatly simplify things.
> 
> bill w  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230425/11ccd4e2/attachment.htm>