"The meaning of a communication is the response you get."

What do you think? Agree? Disagree?

:smoke:

Maybe the poll itself is an example of a statement, and our responses to it are the meaning of it.

...

:evilgrin:

Whenever I get too high to make any sense, no one comes up with a mulligan like that for me.

Now that I have a nice contact high (good weed), I gotta ask "what hook?" :smoke:

:D

"Rousing" is the communication ... and the "rabble" self-identify. :evilgrin: :silly: :evilgrin:
See? The meaning is in the response. :rofl: :rofl:


(Gawd ... I LOVE recursive logic!)
... and CatWoman! :loveya:

Going on in the immigration threads, methinks. If so, bravo. If not, well, what do I know anyway?

longer can say that.

is defined by the abstract allegory of the perceiver,
a response ironic by a subjectivist believer.

I'm always the last to know, and the last to figure something out.

A communication (I would assume) means if you speak or call me and I speak back. Then again, beats the bee-jeebezies out of me.

What's the purpose of feedback? or any communication, for that matter?

If it's not to obtain a response, even if that response is just comprehension, then what it the purpose?
If the purpose is to cause a response, then isn't the response the (effective) meaning?


We each spend time (and electrons) communicating on DU.
What's the meaning?
Where do we find the meaning of our communication?

...When you try to transmit your idea(s) to another being, feedback is your only way of sensing if that transmission was interpreted correctly or incorrectly. Modifying further transmissions to that being to increase comprehension and elicit further feedback to determine if your idea has been correctly received is, in effect, the only way TO communicate.

Remember, communication does not have to be in a verbal language. Body language, tone of voice. nuance and many other items render true communication possible. We are limited here at DU to keyboard communications, why do you think that we have "smilies"? To help us with the emotional content of our messages, which the printed/electronic word cannot transmit effectively.

So it's said. :shrug:

Feedback is information. Regard the source. Rinse. Repeat. :dunce:

We cannot control how our communication is received or interpreted. We can only control how and what we choose to communicate. Even then, we are communicating information unconsciously to those who are paying attention and know what they're perceiving. Artists communicate with people long after those artists are dead through their art, which could mean something unforseen to the people of the future.

So, we have our intended meaning, the meaning of what we communicate unconsciously, and the meaning as interpreted by whoever receives the communication, which can be vastly different. Aside from our intended meaning (and sometimes even then), the meaning of the communication is subjective.

I suppose to communicate could be as simple as a smile, nod or wink... to pat a dog on his head is a form of communicating affection.

To communicate is not the response, but what it is you're trying to relate.

as well as the responses it elicits from yourself. the meaning to those who receive it is made up of all the the responses it elicits from them, including causing them (at least sometimes) to respond by considering the response they *believe* you intended to elicit from them.

or something...

And what counts is what they think? Then disagree - it's far more complex that anything so one-sided and simple could capture. Possibly if one's interests were narrow enough, such a slogan could be useful...

There's an intricate interplay between the speaker, the hearer, the immediate environment, the histories of the two, and the general "liguistic milieu" they find themselves in. Check out Robert Brandom's "Making It Explicit", just for example.


If I'm off on what you're talking about, lil help plz?

...however this mis-administration are so pathological in their lying that you cannot apply rational thoughts to their communication.

i.e.: Rove's Swiftboating of Kerry = Lying and character assassination are the best way to discredit your opponent so that your man can win. Regardless of whether your man is the either the most capable or the best choice to lead the United States.

Rove ethics was to win even if it would destroy democracy in America.
Of course "elections" are what democracy is all about to begin with.

Assuming we're talking about dialog, the meaning of communication is the point that is reached after a few conversational response iterations.

The original statement (question/rant/whatever) doesn't hold the entire "meaning", nor does the response.

If we're not talking about dialog, then it's a different kettle of fish. People may debate the "meaning" of the gettysburg address, but that doesn't change the meaning in any way.

"Communication is the process through which we continuously negotiate the meaning and purpose of our lives. This process is not transparent or innocent: it is shot through with issues of race, gender, class and culture. Our goals must be to understand this process more clearly, to use it more compassionately, and to transform it when necessary."

~Prof. Shailor

then it is incumbent upon me to separate what I "said" from what the other party "heard" and if there is a discrepancy, to investigate it.

(Over the years, I've learned to expect nothing less than this level of comprehension from you, Karenina, particularly in such an area.)

:thumbsup:

:)

I'm with Gorgias on this one.

;-)

It's possible to communicate a meaning with no response. The meaning has to be understood by the recipient for it to be a communication but you dan't have to have it confirmed with a response to the instigating communicator to show that the communication has happened.

... was there actually any communication? (Have you heard that question asked any other way before?) :evilgrin:

but it depends on what you mean by response. Is the response to be to the initial communicator or must the recipient merely demonstrate evidence of the communication to a disinterested observer? If the latter scenario is included in what you mean "communication", then, yeah, you can send a kid to a grocery store telling him to buy some apples for his aunt and then go take them there and he can go wordlessly out the door and buy the stuff and take the apples to his aunt and he doesn't have to say anything to *you* for there to be a communication.

You're talking about something a little less simplistic, though.

I do hope you're not trying to push boundaries round words and trying to smuggle new meanings into clearly defined words and stuff. I'm somewhat against that. It diminishes language in the long run.

If the response is to go to the window and peer around instead of be on guard against flying objects, what was communicated? What was the (effective) meaning?

"Duck!"

Does that mean Donald, Daffy, or lower one's self toward the ground? At a studio in Hollywood, or in a duck blind, or on the sidelines of a baseball game?

Is there a material difference between intention and meaning? If not, why do we have two different words? If not, then what's a lie but the difference between intention and meaning?

When Junior hovers buzzard-like over the podium and says, with a smirk, "you're either with us or against us," is there a difference between the meaning and intention of what he's communicating? Does it depend on how people respond?


Sorry. I was just temporarily inhabited by the restless spirit of Socrates. :evilgrin:

In some instances of communication no feedback or response is necessary or given, yet that doesn't minimize the impact or success of such communication.

Communication, at its core, merely means casting a message upon another effectively enough that the receiving party has the identical understanding of the message that was intended by the communicator, regardless of agreement or condonement. Whether or not a message was communicated is never determined by the communicator alone, as the burden of success lies on whether or not the receiver's perception and understanding of the message lines up identically with how it was intended.

It only requires that the entire message is received.

noises at somebody.

Unless the receiver clearly understands the message within its intent, the message was not FULLY communicated. In the event that no or little part of the message was understood, there was no communication at all, but rather simply one entity making noises to another entity.

For a message to be fully communicated, the intended recipient has to have a full and perceptual understanding of the message that lines up squarely with the senders perceptual intent. Period.

I can tell you "127." You have no idea what my intended meaning is, only what that means to you, your interpreted meaning. However, you can still clearly communicate "127" to someone else, the entire communication, without understanding it.

There are at least three meanings - the intended meaning, the interpreted meaning, and the subconscious meaning, which can be communicated and/or interpreted without our awareness (as with body language or chemical scent), let alone our understanding.

You can go ahead and ignore the accepted definition of communication and make up your own, though, despite the irony in that. I know it's important for you to feel that you're right.

Edit: incomplete sentence

If you say 127 to me, and I have the foggiest idea what you are talking about, then you did nothing more than utter noises at me. The only message that might've come across is that you have mental issues. (No, not saying you do, saying theoretical in that example if you just run up to somebody and say "127 rarrrr" that might be the message portrayed).

A second way to interpret your nonsensical argument would be if you were implying that you relayed 127 to me in order for me to pass it on to someone else, who would then understand your intent. In that case, you communicated nothing to me, but you were communicating with the 3rd party through a intermediary. This situation would be highly unlikely to occur, however, since I would have no reason to repeat 127 to anybody for any reason simply because someone came up to me and said "127".

What would make more sense, and is a possibly additional intention you had in your nonsensical analogy, was that you said 127 to me with the additional communication that I was to repeat that to person x. Upon person x hearing it, they would understand its value, and the communication of the message would be complete. In that case, You did in fact communicate to me, but it wasn't the message 127. Instead, you communicated to me that I needed to deliver a message to somebody, this is the message and please repeat it. Since I would've understood your instructions, your message WAS in fact then communicated to me. But the message wasn't 127. The message was "please repeat 127 to person x". Big difference. Upon me repeating 127 to person x, the second message would then have been fully communicated, in two separate ways. First, my message to person x of "hey, so and so told me to pass this on to you and that you would understand its meaning. 127", would be communicated by person x's understanding that I was passing along a message (not whether or not he understood 127). If person x then did in fact understand 127, the last message was communicated, from YOU, through an intermediary, to person x successfully.

But the fact remains, in each leg of communication there has to be an equal exchange of understanding of the common message in order for the communication to be complete and effective. In absence of that, you are merely making noise.

For the record, I thrive on accuracy and facts. It isn't so much a liking of right or wrong as much as it is an abhorrence to ignorance.

But I was expecting something a bit more perceptive and deductive as to why you did or didn't agree with my previous reply, but I'm ok with the empty statement.

Peace! :hi:

I mean, I did originally say that in the absence of an intended message being received, the communicator is simply making noise. I think this subthread has now come full circle in solidfying that argument.

I like closure. :)

As I said, by definition, communication doesn't require understanding, only that the entire message is received. The only thing silly is the futility of trying to convince you that you're wrong, which I don't need to do given that the evidence is in our posts. But, I'm glad you're happy.

support my position with logic and deduction. I have yet to see you provide any additional logic, reasoning or influence to support your position. In fact, all you did right now was repeat your original reply.

Now, seeing that you didn't understand the logic of my reasoning, I chose to expand the logic and offer a lengthy example of why it was sound and legitimate. You chose to not respond on the actual substance to show why it was or wasn't legitimate, and you also chose to not offer the reasoning and logic behind your alternative opinion. So there was no futility in trying to prove me wrong, as in order to prove anything you have to provide logic, reasoning and facts and support to your argument and reasoning as to why mine isn't sound. You provided none of that, though in rebuttle to yours I provided all of it. I think the only futility was my faith that you would provide anything further in support of your position detailing why it is more legitimate than mine. Oh well.

Enough now. This has become purely circular.

... For example, if someone asked you what language the speaker was using, you'd be able to say english.

You guys are at bottom using two different notions of "communication". One has in mind something like Shannon's informtion theory, and the other has in mind something like the pragmatic Wittgensteinian language game.

So it seems to me at any rate.

Sure I could say it was in english, but the message the communicator originally intended wasn't that the lanugage he spoke was english, so he still then communicated nothing. In this case the only communication that took place was between me and the third person, but completely outside of the first communicator's influence. What I mean is, the third person communicated to me that he was interested in what language the first person spoke. I understood what he meant so his message was fully communicated. I then replied that it was english, and he understood what I meant. My message too was fully communicated. But the original message, was still never communicated at all until the final receiving party fully understands its value, as was explained in my earlier post.

And forgive me, I know I'm beating this topic to death logically, but in the spirit of the thread I'm trying to communicate my reasoning as clearly and repeatedly as possible so that the intended recipients understand it fully, whether they agree or not, so that I can consider my message communicated fully LOL

... but there were numerous tidbits of information that were successfully communicated - I only gave one.

It's more important to note that you two aren't really disagreeing - you're talking past each other, using two substantially different notions of "comunication". Each one is valuable within its proper field of application, but those fields only slightly intersect each other.

Your apples, he's oranges.


EDIT: ROFL!! You guys here and now are communicating in one of your senses, and not in the other! LOLOL

I'm only taking this as far as I did in honor of the OP's spirit of communication itself.

Fact is, I've been laughing my friggin ass off as to how it's turning out. :rofl:

God bless ya bloo! :)

I think the nested Russian dolls are cool. I'm a programmer at heart.

When programmers 'communicate' with the computer, you better believe the meaning is determined by the response. It may not be the interntion, but it's for certain the meaning.

:evilgrin:

:D

what's up with that?

So, whatever response I get defines the conversation? If, let's say, I ask about the color of the sky and the respondent says 'red' when it is, in fact, purple (duh!), what would that mean??? Would that confirm the presence of a sky...or...or... :cry:

No? :evilgrin:

It's common knowledge in communications theory.

What you say is not always what you think you say top people (or write for that matter)

the response you get is the meaning of your communications to whoever you were communicating with.

:yoiks: :spank: :grouphug: