X-Message-Number: 11922 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: for Bob Ettinger, re symbols Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 23:46:58 +1000 (EST) To Bob Ettinger: Basically I was pointing out that to work the Sagan device for communication could not begin with symbols. A chain of 3 dots is not a symbol in itself... Its meaning is what we make it. The same may be said of attempts to show the result of addition or multiplication. We'd have a device that ONLY used symbols if instead of dots to start off arithmetic we had instead: 1 + 0 = 1 1 + 1 = 2 1 + 2 = 3 1 + 3 = 4 and so on. And for elementary arithmetic, we still might get the point through. But elementary arithmetic is only a simple beginning. I was doubting that any structure of symbols as large as a whole language could have a unique mapping onto the world. As for the issue of whether or not we will have a "clean" language in a relatively short time, I doubt that very much. Even if our abilities are augmented and we're freed of all the ills that come now to flesh, we'll still be human beings. And we'll still find ourselves misunder- standing others. Sure, it may be at a higher level, but it will still be there. That kind of misunderstanding is innate to language (and even if we develop some kind of telepathy, we'll still have a kind of language). Finally, I will agree that symbols are a much deeper notion that many might believe. LITERALLY ANYTHING can be a symbol. To tell whether it is used and seen as such, we need to look much more deeply into the mind of the person using or seeing it. But the arbitrary character, I believe, is essential to something being a symbol. I'd want to think more on the issue before I said that it was also SUFFICIENT to be a symbol. Best and long long life, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11922