X-Message-Number: 4013 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:13:29 -0800 From: John K Clark <> Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Symbols -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In #4006 (Thomas Donaldson) Wrote: >You say that a "symbol" is any change in a physical object >which has been set up by convention. I didn't say anything of the sort, what I did say is "A symbol STANDS FOR or REPRESENTS something else because of a convention " I also said "A symbol must symbolize something". >cans have a conventional structure. So can openers >manipulate symbols. Can openers can't read symbols and the can's don't symbolize anything. It can't put a lid back on and most can't even tell if a can is open or closed. It would be a silly thing to do but yes with a LOT more hardware you could make a can opener computer, an open can could symbolizes 1 a closed can 0 . Many things can be used as symbols but that doesn't mean they actually are one and it certainly doesn't mean that's all that they are, it's still a physical can made of metal. A book is full of symbols but that's irrelevant when considering it's mass or it's heat content when burned. Even a violin can be used as a fly swatter but that doesn't mean that all objects are fly swatters. >Are you equating "convention" with "universal" No, it could be but not necessarily , a convention could be true in only one object in the universe. A convention can also be universal but arbitrary, the genetic code and the metric system are two examples. >Naturally you should understand that I was not using >and don't plan to use your definition. I'm not surprised since apparently you don't believe that symbols exist, I am however surprised you spend so much time looking at squiggles such as this on your computer screen. I'd also like to know how you fit something as hot and big as the sun in your head when you think about it. >I will also note that by your definition of symbol, >there are a great many symbols which computers cannot and will >never be able to manipulate. If your using that silly parody of my definition then nothing much makes sense. >I hardly chose my own chemistry. No, not yet. >I'm not talking about taste. I might have a fatal >reaction to a drug which cures you of your disease. Picking life over death is strictly a matter of taste. >We have done much better in designing many of our >devices not because we are innately better but simply because we >can make something which serves US. And we will continue to >do that. The important thing is that we can do better than nature and I'm glad you agree, exactly why we can do better is an interesting philosophical problem but not a practical concern. >To complain because these life forms don't fit our >purposes, and claim that is a reason why nature is a poor >designer, is both short-sighted and ignorant. Mr.Donaldson, in general I don't It find it insulting when somebody talks in a superior, condescending way if it's justified by deep knowledge or abilities; in your particular case I find such an attitude insulting. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBL2fBwn03wfSpid95AQH8cgTtElVQHbhKeNVNgvkWGGejCstFTRadVXNh +hJhI+8XVkCPiAy1zghsGZ3DiZzDO4Y5MgATuEQoYLAB/EA+3NI2bMXIcnHxt6Nm caZ9ThRioow+lGxQjpJqUQGofS+RkMVCfmk9XfHmcV4HyhWd0k/pBb6ZdmToTI2D aCzSM/YkOXTIbyjmRIhLpmGb7EXGJvA8Xr2LaQ4YEJOPo1F4Fq0= =vaot -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4013