If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Do you speak continuously? Are you a whale? Are you doing this on porpoise?
You are silent. Sound is "off". Then you speak. Sound is "on". Then you shut up. Sound is "off"
You are either speaking - "1" or you are not -"0".
Does this get us any nearer you acceptance that semiotics is bunnies, btw?
the question is about speech itsself, not wether we are sepaking or not
Though god knows why the hell I'm replying to someone who is describing heard sounds as digital
Oh for fucks sake. You stated that sound was digital. I've shown you that it isn't. Yes, words are discrete units, but not always when spoken, a lot of people run words together, nowharrimean? Sound is not digital, minute variations in sound impart meaning, therefore it is not digital, it is analogue.
See, this is why I think you're foolish - you'll argue your point even when you've been shown to be totally wrong. That's the action of a fool.
Make yer mind up.
I thought meaning was in the "sign" and not the "signifier"?
But you can only do one of them at once, hence it's digital. You can either use tonality "x" or not use tonality "x" you can't so both. Hence - digital.
You've shown nothing of the sort. you are also confusing action with actor again.
You're weird.
I dunno where you got that from, its not in anything I wrote, nor in any of those links about semiotics that you or I posted. Do you just make things up to try and prove a point? Whats the matter with you?
Sometimes I do but not today.
Back to Semiotics?
Hang on, you said earlier
I think that speech has an effect, which isn't the same as "meaning".
Sure, no problem. I accept fully and completely that I haven't been proven wrong yet. Equally I haven't convincingly proved the case for it being digital either (to you anyway). Who knows, perhaps speech has elements of both. :thumb:
None, that I am aware of. It wouldn't make any difference to the argument anyway but I had a suspicion I wanted to check out. Try google and see what shakes out I suggest.
So meaning can't be expressed with a sigh, a grunt, a snort, a laugh, a sob?
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:M8ypqr0e17kJ:www.ida.liu.se/~ssomc/papers/Nelfelt.pdf+language+visual+speech+analogue&hl=en
Are you denying that you wrote "As stuff either "means" something or it doesn't it falls firmly into 1/0 processing"? If it never means anything, how can it be binary? If can only be one value, it ain't binary.
What do you think my opinion is?
Yes, meaning derives from the effect of speech. Speech is the signifier which denotes the signified.
But you have. Read the links you posted.
There is no case to prove.
Illogical nonsense.
Are you denying that you wrote "As neurologists would describe it as a digital system then I will join them."?
Potentiality is not the same as actuality.
I love the way the posts you use to prove your points actually do the opposite.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:...+analogue&hl=en
(Just in case you missed it the first time)
Yes I think it's rather neat.
Do you think semiotics is drivel? That's the key point you see. It's like using the bible to argue with a priest.
There are other systems than analogue and digital? Isn't it a bit late to start introducing them now?
The article distinctly calls speech a "discreet" system i.e. a digital one. It also points out that it isn't analogue on a number of occasions.
Leave you with this little pearler from our mate at the linguistics department. -
You're using something that you think is drivel to prove your point? Sorry, run that by me again, it still doesn't make sense.
Where have I done that?
You were arguing earlier that the written word was "analogue", you were arguing that sound is "digital". This paper does not in any way back up your argument, its about sign language and spoken language. Yes, it says that words are discrete units, but as I said earlier, people run their words together, innit? Words being discrete units is not the same as language being digital. In a digital system, each discrete unit can only represent one thing - we know this is not true of words, they can take on very different meanings depending on how they are spoken, as you pointed out earlier with your bizarre point about a lover or a brickie saying my name. In a digital system, each unit has the same value, always. 1 always means 1, 0 always means 0.
Yes, that has never been in doubt, its what I've said all along.
Do you think it is drivel? That's the important point. I make the analogy of arguing with a priest using the bible when that's the only way to argue with him/her effectively because they are refusing all other forms of communication.
You haven't which is going to be important in a minute or two. I was just confirming with you.
Creating a new digital word.
yes, go on....
Bugger you fluffed it. Each new type of spoken word is a brand new spoken word. Which can either be spoken or not spoken. I.e. it's a digital system.
Yes.
And I love you spoken with an angry tone of voice always means I love you with an angry tone of voice. To say I love you in any other way is to say a different word. Which can either be spoken or not spoken, so it's a digital system still.
It is? Weird.
This for instance is all arse about tit. If you're arguing that the visual is analogue, then surely a small change in the form of the visual would change the meaning and if the auditory was digital, then a small change would not have any effect on meaning. You have said "but the "meaning" remains constant if it is visual" which rather contradicts yourself and anyway isn't true, as any graphic designer will tell you. As for the auditory - as has already been demonstrated, a small change in the form can utterly change the meaning and from your earlier link - " It differs from a digital signal in that small fluctuations in the signal are meaningful."
Of course, no doubt you'll contradict yourself, be inconsistent and illogical, write things and then deny writing them a few minutes later, in fact anything to avoid admitting you're wrong.
Amazing, you've contradicted, been inconsistent. denied and everything I said you would do, before I even wrote it!
Personally, I wouldn't accept the premise of the Bible to prove my atheism.