Re: It don't mean a thing ...
From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:35:44 +0200
Message-ID: <40bd04b5$0$563$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
>
> Perhaps it is like saying that books, on their own, have no meaning?
>
> Maybe the issue is whether there is meaning where there is no human being.
> Of course the data have meaning in that the author takes what they "mean"
> and translates it into data/symbols. The computer (software) translates and
> store the data in other symbols, then translates back to the original
> symbols when the data are requested. Then the reader reads meaning into the
> data, hopefully close to the original intended meaning for the symbols. Was
> the meaning in the symbols or in the people?
>
> I think it is most useful to say that books and data have meaning,
> expecially for our purposes when discussing data, but I understand the point
> of those who might suggest that the meaning isn't in the symbols, but is,
> rather, communicated by them.
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:35:44 +0200
Message-ID: <40bd04b5$0$563$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:
[summary]
> mAsterdam wrote:
>><quote> >> Data on its own has no meaning, only >> when interpreted by some kind of data >> processing system does it take on >> meaning and become information. >></quote> >>Does it have a source? >>Is it bad?
>
> Perhaps it is like saying that books, on their own, have no meaning?
>
> Maybe the issue is whether there is meaning where there is no human being.
> Of course the data have meaning in that the author takes what they "mean"
> and translates it into data/symbols. The computer (software) translates and
> store the data in other symbols, then translates back to the original
> symbols when the data are requested. Then the reader reads meaning into the
> data, hopefully close to the original intended meaning for the symbols. Was
> the meaning in the symbols or in the people?
>
> I think it is most useful to say that books and data have meaning,
> expecially for our purposes when discussing data, but I understand the point
> of those who might suggest that the meaning isn't in the symbols, but is,
> rather, communicated by them.
I agree mostly, but not with the last sentence. Actors communicate, using symbols to carry meaning - but I don't think this nuance would lead to serious miscommunications. The difference between data as meaningless and what I thought/think is data would, no, did. Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:35:44 CEST