NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/bit/listserv/mbul/3546

Text File | 1992-07-21 | 1.4 KB | 27 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!UHUNIX.BITNET!JAMESS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:44:36 HST
Sender:       "Megabyte University (Computers & Writing)" <[e-mail]>
From:         James Shimabukuro <[e-mail]>
Subject:      Re: communications models, again
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:14:19 CDT
Lines: 15

Jim McDonald: A mechanistic system model may not be able to adequately
describe human discourse.  An attempt would be problematic.  However, the
system could be so modeled that it's not mechanistic.  I'm using the term in
its meta, general, or whole form.  As a way to perceive the whole, it is
neither mechanistic nor human.  However, as you and Allene are pointing out,
the term isn't without connotations that are mechanistic.  I'd be perfectly
happy to use other terms that are less mechanical.  However, I can't think of
a language for modeling what human beings do when they interact--a language
that is not associated with a particular communications model.  Perhaps
there's a meta-model (Plato's "one") for the diverse competing perceptions
(the "many"), a general model that's not associated with a mechanistic view
of the world?

Jim Shimabukuro
[e-mail]