drjasonjcampbell
http://www.jasonjcampbell.org/uploads/Ferdinand_de_Saussure_Linguistics_Semiotics_Semiology.pdf .
6. Section 1: Semiotics, Semiology, Sign and Saussure Lecture
Similar Posts
The Basics of Semiotics (3): The First Correlate
Bad Film #2, The Semiotic Tree
Semantic & psychological barriers (barriers to effective communication) class 12
12 thoughts on “6. Section 1: Semiotics, Semiology, Sign and Saussure Lecture”
Comments are closed.
Re parrot and red ball, perhaps the "Eliza" computer program would be another example.
@noel0083 Thanks. I would be cool to open the discussion and see how other perspectives would incorporate semiotics into their systems of belief. Thanks again. Peace.
Lacon fails to consider the possibility that our thoughts are not restricted to be 'in' a public language. We communicate on our thoughts via public language, but our thoughts themselves are not public. Lacon is simply wrong.
Dr. Campbell, I'm reading a book written by Bergen (sp?) called Louder Than Words (2012) – he was a student of George Lakoff at Berkeley – that goes into the science of how we create meaning. Apparently it includes around a decade of studies and information they use to draw the ultimate conclusion in their book about how to the mind makes meaning from language. Thought it would be relevant!
This largely depends on your personal understanding of what does it mean "to think".
Plz elaborate.
Maybe what should really count as "thought" is only that which is by default entangled with the public language. In this regard there are no non-public thoughts. The part of reasoning which is not interconnected with public language (this would be the kind of reasoning one might find in non-human animals) is not proper thought. Questions of pure reason (e.g.: questions of existence, will, god, etc.) are only possible in the presence of public language. Maybe.
Elaborate please. How is, for example, the proprioceptive intuition of the world 'in a public language'?
Sounds like positivism! That's fine, but plz be aware of what such entails…
Descartes is dealing with the most foundamental part of human being which is human cognition and intuition, Lacon just doesn't understand that Human's emotion and intuition and cognition are the driven force behind language. Without human, there is no language. Dr Jason, do not side with Lacon. Language is a part of the mode of communication but it's human's cognition that is able to facilitate such articulate of language be it none -verbal or verbal language. I've made my case
Descartes is dealing with the most foundamental part of human being which is human cognition and intuition, Lacon just doesn't understand that Human's emotion and intuition and cognition are the driven force behind language. Without human, there is no language. Dr Jason, do not side with Lacon. Language is a part of the mode of communication but it's human's cognition that is able to facilitate such articulate of language be it none -verbal or verbal language. I've made my case
Descartes is dealing with the most foundamental part of human being which is human cognition and intuition, Lacon just doesn't understand that Human's emotion and intuition and cognition are the driven force behind language. Without human, there is no language. Dr Jason, do not side with Lacon. Language is a part of the mode of communication but it's human's cognition that is able to facilitate such articulate of language be it none -verbal or verbal language. I've made my case.