|
Table of Contents Fours that I've adopted or adapted:
Fours with a striking likeness to mine: Fours involving some likeness to mine: |
More-or-less different fours:
|
| Communication theory | |
1. Source. 2. Encoding. 2½. Channel. | 3. Decoding. 4. Destination. |
| Tetrastic semiotic | |
1. Object. 2. Sign. | 3. Interpretant. 4. Recognizant, establishment, (collaterally observant) subject. |
Recentest tweak: May 22, 2026. Made badly needed corrections April 7, 2012.
Claude Shannon's communication-theoretic scenario, when cast as four stages, involves source, encoding (sender), decoding (receiver), and destination . (However, the communication channel is often included as a stage, on a par with the others and between encoding and decoding. Solutions to the challenge of the channel and its noise shape a lot of communication theory; but the challenge is to minimize the noise and avoid information loss; the generation or modification of signals is desirable only in the other stages.) My augmentation of C.S. Peirce's semiotic process (a.k.a. semiosis) to include a fourth and (dis)verificatory/(dis)confirmatory stage brings semiosis into alignment and correlation with the fourfold version of Shannon's scenario. The field of experience in or against which a decoding (and ultimately the encoding and source as well) is tested is, first of all, that of the destination. Note: semiosis differs in that it is not code-bound like info-theoretic communication; the continual renovation and occasional redesign of a communication system is a kind of "evolution" (pace biologists!) whereby semiosis is arguably definable, and which, I argue, comes about through such testing. As for channels and noise, I'm unsure of precisely what the semiotic analogs to them would be.
. . . . |

