When I first fiddled with distributed computing with early RPC
technology... synced models with serialization of internal state
transmitted, recieved and semaphored I came to appreciate obliquely just
how "fragile" this idealized conception of "communication" was.
That gave me sympathy with *one* conception of why you might say
"communication doesn't exist" but continuing the spirit of paradox and
oxymoron, here I am trying to "communicate" such to you and the rest of
the group.
Can you offer a better suite of terminology, a better framing for just
what the *experience* I impute on group behaviours of impedance-coupled
"agents", resonating (and dissonating?) amongst ourselves with
linguistic signifiers (or signs) being the "intermediate vectors"?
"coupled phonemics"?
Just what is it we might be doing when we think we are commune(icate)ing?
On 2/4/26 4:00 pm, glen wrote:
Not that communication is impossible; that it doesn't exist. Granted,
I've advocated Lewisian possible worlds. So it's understandable you'd
impute {¬X⊢¬◇X}. But I don't think I agree with Lewis. Just 'cause
something's possible doesn't mean it obtains, here or elsewhere. And
something that's possible *could* exist. (Is that tautological? I
don't think so. Usually, when we say "It's possible", we're implicitly
asserting that it *isn't* but could have been. Monkeys may fly out my
butt, as the kids used to say.)
Communication may be possible, for some definition of it. For the
definitions I've seen, it doesn't exist.
My best definition of it, that I might buy exists, is post-hoc
rationalization of some overly simplified, just-so story about the
causes of some present state. You flapped your lips. I gave you a salt
shaker. If you think your lip flapping *caused* me to give you the
salt shaker, there aren't many ways I could flap my lips to dissuade
you of that story.
If that post-hoc rationalization is what we mean by "communication",
then yes, it may well exist. Anything's possible.
On 2/4/26 1:07 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Dogs notwithstanding, if Glen says that communication is impossible,
he's just wrong. I am sure he is saying SOMETHING TRUE, because Glen
usually does. I can imagine specifications and qualifications of
that statement that are true. "Its impossible to communicate with
somebody who isnt listening" Thats true enough. Its possible that
we in FRIAM have just run out of reasons to LISTEN. That may be
what Jon's post and his reference to Ezra Klein was about. We
definitely have a shortage of listeners in todays marketplace of
ideas. Funny the market has not responded to that need. I am now
paying at least one person to read my substack. Nick
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
