Yes, that’s what I’m saying. It’s counterintuitive because you so effortlessly refernce others’ cognitive structures. In communicating, you assume a certain amount of common understanding, which allows you to know whehter your message will be understood. In sending such a message, you rely on that information. You would have to think, “will they understand what this sentence means”, “can they read this font”, etc.
Personally I’m thinking about communicating with machines myself, so I’m thinking something a long the lines of the following.
That completely defines what I want the system to do. I do not reference other peoples thoughts.
Now it does rely on shared knowledge, the system has to have the standard libraries and a c compiler. But I could send that and still not reference humanity at all. I could send a C compiler in machine code. But that relies on me sharing knowledge with the other side on what machine code it uses.
With no shared knowledge, they cannot understand any type of definition I send. No matter if I reference human senses or not.
Personally I’m thinking about communicating with machines myself, so I’m thinking something a long the lines of the following.
#include
void main()
{ int x; for( x= 1;x<101; x++){printf(“%d\n”,x);} }
That completely defines what I want the system to do. I do not reference other peoples thoughts.
Now it does rely on shared knowledge, the system has to have the standard libraries and a c compiler. But I could send that and still not reference humanity at all. I could send a C compiler in machine code. But that relies on me sharing knowledge with the other side on what machine code it uses.
With no shared knowledge, they cannot understand any type of definition I send. No matter if I reference human senses or not.