Just-language, without any irl stuff, probably doesn't really achieve communication. Because the words don't carry their definition. And they definitely don't carry any real experience-stuff (sight, sound etc) either.

It's just assumed that you're connecting the word to the definition/experience, in your head, in a way that makes communication happen.

And that's a big assumption. It might be only 80% congruent. Or 50%. Or 5%. We could be a race of Chinese boxes for all we know.

IRL there is a verification to the process. If I order a pizza and I get a pizza then that's a pretty good sign that the communication is working.

But on the Internet, where it's just-language? Forget it. Howling solipsists all the way down.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 13 hours ago (3 children)

All forms of communication have advantages and disadvantages. I'm old enough to still have written actual letters to lovers and friends. There's something to be said for collecting your thoughts - sometimes for days - and putting them on paper in concentrated form.

All in all I think the dangers of misunderstanding each other are just as big as with any other form.
Unless you had some other type of effectiveness in mind.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 11 hours ago (2 children)

    The ability to refer directly to a shared experience definitely sets that form of communication above other types. Definitely moves it in the direction opposite solipsistic howling. Wouldn't you agree?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 child)

    You asked a question with something specific in mind, but that isn't actually reflected in the question. Well, in the very last sentence it is.

    I answered a different aspect of the question.

    Effective communication?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment