#semiotics — Public Fediverse posts

The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:

The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:

The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:

The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:

The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/

Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.

• Information = Comprehension × Extension

In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.

Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.

#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/

Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.

• Information = Comprehension × Extension

In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.

Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.

#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/

Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.

• Information = Comprehension × Extension

In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.

Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.

#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/

Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.

• Information = Comprehension × Extension

In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.

Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.

#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation

Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/

Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.

• Information = Comprehension × Extension

In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.

Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.

#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation

Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034

Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035

#philosophy #books #книги #философия #semiotics

Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034

Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035

#philosophy #books #книги #философия #semiotics

Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034

Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035

#philosophy #books #книги #философия #semiotics

Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034

Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035

#philosophy #books #книги #философия #semiotics

Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034

Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035

#philosophy #books #книги #философия #semiotics

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)

A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.

https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one

#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics

New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)

A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.

https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one

#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics

New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)

A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.

https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one

#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics

New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)

A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.

https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one

#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics

New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)

A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.

https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one

#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics

Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind

The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.

99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.

We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.

We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.

We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.

NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.

Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.

This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.

Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.

Just some trivia for you.

link

1. NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎

Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind

The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.

99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.

We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.

We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.

We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.

NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.

Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.

This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.

Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.

Just some trivia for you.

link

1. NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎

Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind

The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.

99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.

We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.

We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.

We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.

NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.

Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.

This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.

Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.

Just some trivia for you.

link

1. NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎

Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind

The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.

99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.

We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.

We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.

We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.

NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.

Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.

This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.

Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.

Just some trivia for you.

link

1. NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎

Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind

The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.

99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.

We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.

We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.

We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.

NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.

Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.

This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.

Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.

Just some trivia for you.

link

1. NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎

link

link

link

link

link

Semiotic proprioception in dreams and waking

Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.”

We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.

When we dream, our capacity for physical movement, with rare exceptions, is paralyzed. But we still do a sort of proprioception in dreams—a semiotic proprioception, or proprioception within the semiology of the dream.

In dreams, we grope through semiotic associations and respond, gropingly, to them. People and things often look smaller in dreams, or distorted, because we do not have either the need or the capacity to calibrate our physical proprioception as we do in waking life.

Dreams move from one semiotic proprioception to another via our individual four-dimensional (3D plus time) groping/associative function. In one short segment of a dream we are at home, then we go through a door only to find ourselves on a boat in the ocean. Our 4D semiotic proprioception within dreams readily accepts groping, associative shifts like this.

Much of what we perceive when we are awake is memory. We glance at a room we know well and call up our memory of it rather than actually look closely at the room.

I am fairly sure that the memories we call up to aid perception while we are awake are much the same as the groping proprioception we experience in dreams. A major difference is when we are awake we can and do check our waking proprioception with the people and objects around us, while in dreams the associative function has a much freer range.

Notice how dreams move from scene to scene rather slowly. Things can go quickly, but normally dreams grope somewhat slowly along the 4D path of semiotic proprioception.

In waking life, our dreamy use of memory and association to aid perception of the world happens constantly.

When we speak with another person, we use this function to make groping associations concerning what we think they are saying. We grope and respond to them as in a dream while at the same time searching for clues that indicate we are both in the same dream.

These clues that two people may sort of “agree on” while speaking are normally standard public semiotics that belong to whatever culture(s) they share. By “agreeing” on them, we form a sort of agreeable camaraderie with whomever we are speaking, and this can be satisfying, but if we only get this, it can also become deeply unsatisfying.

The four dimensional groping/dreamy function of our mind is far richer than any standard collection of public semiotics. In our public lives—professional, commercial, based on organizations, etc.—we have, at present, little recourse but to accept normal public semiotics, to agree with them and manifest agreement.

We can express some deviation from them and sometimes make jokes about them, but we are generally fairly bound to the semiotics of the culture or organization that generates the context of our speaking. Consider how people in the same church or school are bound by the semiotics of those institutions.

In our intimate relations, however, we do have recourse to investigate and understand how our groping, 4D semiotic proprioception works. This is what FIML does. It allows partners to observe, analyze, and understand the semiotic proprioceptions of their minds as they are actually functioning during interpersonal communication.

If you constantly avoid FIML types of investigations, you will be stuck with a mix of dimly shared public/private semiotics that will tend to become highly ambiguous, even volatile, or very shallow.

Semiotic proprioception in dreams and waking

Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.”

We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.

When we dream, our capacity for physical movement, with rare exceptions, is paralyzed. But we still do a sort of proprioception in dreams—a semiotic proprioception, or proprioception within the semiology of the dream.

In dreams, we grope through semiotic associations and respond, gropingly, to them. People and things often look smaller in dreams, or distorted, because we do not have either the need or the capacity to calibrate our physical proprioception as we do in waking life.

Dreams move from one semiotic proprioception to another via our individual four-dimensional (3D plus time) groping/associative function. In one short segment of a dream we are at home, then we go through a door only to find ourselves on a boat in the ocean. Our 4D semiotic proprioception within dreams readily accepts groping, associative shifts like this.

Much of what we perceive when we are awake is memory. We glance at a room we know well and call up our memory of it rather than actually look closely at the room.

I am fairly sure that the memories we call up to aid perception while we are awake are much the same as the groping proprioception we experience in dreams. A major difference is when we are awake we can and do check our waking proprioception with the people and objects around us, while in dreams the associative function has a much freer range.

Notice how dreams move from scene to scene rather slowly. Things can go quickly, but normally dreams grope somewhat slowly along the 4D path of semiotic proprioception.

In waking life, our dreamy use of memory and association to aid perception of the world happens constantly.

When we speak with another person, we use this function to make groping associations concerning what we think they are saying. We grope and respond to them as in a dream while at the same time searching for clues that indicate we are both in the same dream.

These clues that two people may sort of “agree on” while speaking are normally standard public semiotics that belong to whatever culture(s) they share. By “agreeing” on them, we form a sort of agreeable camaraderie with whomever we are speaking, and this can be satisfying, but if we only get this, it can also become deeply unsatisfying.

The four dimensional groping/dreamy function of our mind is far richer than any standard collection of public semiotics. In our public lives—professional, commercial, based on organizations, etc.—we have, at present, little recourse but to accept normal public semiotics, to agree with them and manifest agreement.

We can express some deviation from them and sometimes make jokes about them, but we are generally fairly bound to the semiotics of the culture or organization that generates the context of our speaking. Consider how people in the same church or school are bound by the semiotics of those institutions.

In our intimate relations, however, we do have recourse to investigate and understand how our groping, 4D semiotic proprioception works. This is what FIML does. It allows partners to observe, analyze, and understand the semiotic proprioceptions of their minds as they are actually functioning during interpersonal communication.

If you constantly avoid FIML types of investigations, you will be stuck with a mix of dimly shared public/private semiotics that will tend to become highly ambiguous, even volatile, or very shallow.

Semiotic proprioception in dreams and waking

Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.”

We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.

When we dream, our capacity for physical movement, with rare exceptions, is paralyzed. But we still do a sort of proprioception in dreams—a semiotic proprioception, or proprioception within the semiology of the dream.

In dreams, we grope through semiotic associations and respond, gropingly, to them. People and things often look smaller in dreams, or distorted, because we do not have either the need or the capacity to calibrate our physical proprioception as we do in waking life.

Dreams move from one semiotic proprioception to another via our individual four-dimensional (3D plus time) groping/associative function. In one short segment of a dream we are at home, then we go through a door only to find ourselves on a boat in the ocean. Our 4D semiotic proprioception within dreams readily accepts groping, associative shifts like this.

Much of what we perceive when we are awake is memory. We glance at a room we know well and call up our memory of it rather than actually look closely at the room.

I am fairly sure that the memories we call up to aid perception while we are awake are much the same as the groping proprioception we experience in dreams. A major difference is when we are awake we can and do check our waking proprioception with the people and objects around us, while in dreams the associative function has a much freer range.

Notice how dreams move from scene to scene rather slowly. Things can go quickly, but normally dreams grope somewhat slowly along the 4D path of semiotic proprioception.

In waking life, our dreamy use of memory and association to aid perception of the world happens constantly.

When we speak with another person, we use this function to make groping associations concerning what we think they are saying. We grope and respond to them as in a dream while at the same time searching for clues that indicate we are both in the same dream.

These clues that two people may sort of “agree on” while speaking are normally standard public semiotics that belong to whatever culture(s) they share. By “agreeing” on them, we form a sort of agreeable camaraderie with whomever we are speaking, and this can be satisfying, but if we only get this, it can also become deeply unsatisfying.

The four dimensional groping/dreamy function of our mind is far richer than any standard collection of public semiotics. In our public lives—professional, commercial, based on organizations, etc.—we have, at present, little recourse but to accept normal public semiotics, to agree with them and manifest agreement.

We can express some deviation from them and sometimes make jokes about them, but we are generally fairly bound to the semiotics of the culture or organization that generates the context of our speaking. Consider how people in the same church or school are bound by the semiotics of those institutions.

In our intimate relations, however, we do have recourse to investigate and understand how our groping, 4D semiotic proprioception works. This is what FIML does. It allows partners to observe, analyze, and understand the semiotic proprioceptions of their minds as they are actually functioning during interpersonal communication.

If you constantly avoid FIML types of investigations, you will be stuck with a mix of dimly shared public/private semiotics that will tend to become highly ambiguous, even volatile, or very shallow.

Semiotic proprioception in dreams and waking

Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.”

We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.

When we dream, our capacity for physical movement, with rare exceptions, is paralyzed. But we still do a sort of proprioception in dreams—a semiotic proprioception, or proprioception within the semiology of the dream.

In dreams, we grope through semiotic associations and respond, gropingly, to them. People and things often look smaller in dreams, or distorted, because we do not have either the need or the capacity to calibrate our physical proprioception as we do in waking life.

Dreams move from one semiotic proprioception to another via our individual four-dimensional (3D plus time) groping/associative function. In one short segment of a dream we are at home, then we go through a door only to find ourselves on a boat in the ocean. Our 4D semiotic proprioception within dreams readily accepts groping, associative shifts like this.

Much of what we perceive when we are awake is memory. We glance at a room we know well and call up our memory of it rather than actually look closely at the room.

I am fairly sure that the memories we call up to aid perception while we are awake are much the same as the groping proprioception we experience in dreams. A major difference is when we are awake we can and do check our waking proprioception with the people and objects around us, while in dreams the associative function has a much freer range.

Notice how dreams move from scene to scene rather slowly. Things can go quickly, but normally dreams grope somewhat slowly along the 4D path of semiotic proprioception.

In waking life, our dreamy use of memory and association to aid perception of the world happens constantly.

When we speak with another person, we use this function to make groping associations concerning what we think they are saying. We grope and respond to them as in a dream while at the same time searching for clues that indicate we are both in the same dream.

These clues that two people may sort of “agree on” while speaking are normally standard public semiotics that belong to whatever culture(s) they share. By “agreeing” on them, we form a sort of agreeable camaraderie with whomever we are speaking, and this can be satisfying, but if we only get this, it can also become deeply unsatisfying.

The four dimensional groping/dreamy function of our mind is far richer than any standard collection of public semiotics. In our public lives—professional, commercial, based on organizations, etc.—we have, at present, little recourse but to accept normal public semiotics, to agree with them and manifest agreement.

We can express some deviation from them and sometimes make jokes about them, but we are generally fairly bound to the semiotics of the culture or organization that generates the context of our speaking. Consider how people in the same church or school are bound by the semiotics of those institutions.

In our intimate relations, however, we do have recourse to investigate and understand how our groping, 4D semiotic proprioception works. This is what FIML does. It allows partners to observe, analyze, and understand the semiotic proprioceptions of their minds as they are actually functioning during interpersonal communication.

If you constantly avoid FIML types of investigations, you will be stuck with a mix of dimly shared public/private semiotics that will tend to become highly ambiguous, even volatile, or very shallow.

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't

Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...

https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida

Why was, and still is, wikipedia doubted as a qualified source and AI is invited to pest through all institutions of knowledge and information? Semiotic inversion feels like an universal law. Money stops representing value. Now, what is worth money, is deemed valuable. Same with user generated media: good content should propagate well, but it is the other way around. What performs well on platforms is deemed good content. And it is similar with AI slop. We all know by now what an excellent source Wikipedia is for both: journalism and science. But it is still a struggle to qualify it as such. Meanwhile, schools, universities and politics wonder how they can implement wonderful AI slop in education and production. This is not a story of its success, this all happened after AI slop already was a market asset. The answer always is capitalism, I don't make the rules. #Semiotics #Sociology #Capitalism