Howard, HP: Suppose, in context of a Dicisign or a proposition, you ask me: Is it true or false? I can give you a one-bit answer. Isn't that bit some kind of sign?
GF: My answer to your question is: 1. (as opposed to 0). But without the symbolic context which makes the bit interpretable *as the answer to the question*, - part of which context is the legisign establishing that 1 is in binary opposition to 0 - that bit conveys zero information and is not a sign of anything. Can you give me a one-bit question? gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Howard Pattee [mailto:hpat...@roadrunner.com] Sent: 5-Oct-14 3:53 PM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce List' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7097] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6 At 01:15 PM 10/5/2014, Gary Fuhrman wrote: >Nobody (least of all Peirce!) is naming bits "symbols" or "legisigns". >Bits (as the name implies!) can only be small pieces of symbols in the >semiotic sense of the word "symbol"; they are not symbols in the >Peircean sense because a bit by itself, out of any context, will not >and cannot be interpreted as a sign. HP: Suppose, in context of a Dicisign or a proposition, you ask me: Is it true or false? I can give you a one-bit answer. Isn't that bit some kind of sign? Howard "There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who don't." Don Knuth
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
