Criticizing Linguistics/Shared Cognitions (3)

[Salinas17 at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/5/07 12:25:32 AM, amnfn at well.com writes:
<<In the case of a computer that passes messages between people, just as in 
the case of a book whose author is long dead, the issue is not that no 
cognition was involved in creating the message. The point is that the cognition that 
created the message is no longer operating at the time of delivery.>>

I see.   You're connecting "cognition" to a particular person.   The 
difference is that I see "cognitions" as information.   They don't die or disappear.   
They are either communicated or not communicated.   What I'm thinking today 
may not be what I think tomorrow -- you don't need death for individual 
cognitions to change.   Whether I am alive or dead when you read this is irrelevant 
to the transfer of this particular piece of information.   I might change my 
mind right after I send this post, but that will not change what I was 
"congnitioning" (ha) when I sent it.   That information has already been transferred 
via our common language.

<<If cognition and language were one and the same, none of these scenarios 
would work.>>

Language is the transfer of "cognitions."   When a cognition is communicated, 
it becomes a "shared cognition."   The transfer of information does not 
depend upon whether the transferor died long ago or not, it depends on successful 
transfer by any media through which language can be used.

Regards,
Steve Long 








**************************************
 See what's new at http://www.aol.com