"Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BbDfc.1$pr1.0_at_newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> "Dawn M. Wolthuis" <dwolt_at_tincat-group.com> wrote in message
> news:c5mqcq$b8a$1_at_news.netins.net...
> > "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:sfadnXg-idCufuPdRVn-hA_at_comcast.com...
> > > So now the real message communicated from the writer of some data and
> the
> > > reader of that same data depends on feelings stimulated in the
reader's
> > > brain.
> > >
> > > I give up.
> >
> > No need to give up -- just study semiotics and/or linguistics. Logic is
> not
> > the only process our brains use for acquiring information.
> smiles. --dawn
>
> However, I'd wager it's the only one suitable for automation. Anything not
> logical has to be reduced to some system of logic before a computer can
> answer questions about it. Unless, of course, you're doing nothing with it
> but showing it to a human being...
I really should let you have the last word on that rather than repeating
myself, but it is still the case that if you don't have to lose information,
then why do so? IF you CAN capture information for automation AND retain
something that might or might not be information, then why not do
o? --dawn
Received on Thu Apr 15 2004 - 16:38:09 CDT
