Alas, there is no chatbot. I despise them. There is only me, and I sometimes shoot myself in the toe by not tracing back to the original thread. My apologies.
But I was focusing on what I said about communication of information being about the reduction of uncertainty in propositions. If you don't know what the proposition is, it is nothing but uncertainty. I was not using "exactness" in that formulation.
Exactness is no proof of communication, however. Exactness would be exemplified by the alphabet or numbers. The meaning of the symbol is exact (or in the case language, nearly so). I can read pages of clearly-printed gibberish, all of it exact, and no communication.
So, I don't know where we are with this discussion. To the extent that the "symbols" used by Q are just abbreviations, they are trivial. Anything other is obscure. I see too many people treating them, de facto, as Rorschach blots, reading meaning into them from their own prejudices. It bothers me to see it so starkly, and it puts me off---as I think it would put off any "normie." Sherlock Holmes would not approve.
But I was focusing on what I said about communication of information being about the reduction of uncertainty in propositions. If you don't know what the proposition is, it is nothing but uncertainty.
Within the Q posts is there not a catalogue of ostensive definitions--gradually built up and improved over multiple years--which we now utilize and apply to current and historical events?
Isn't my post just imitating the classic Q timestamp & date conventions and applying them to a communication from an agency (Secret Service) that is known to be linked to Q?
Am I not just a sort of child mimicking my parents (Q & the anons) and trying to speak their language--sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing?
Bear in mind, I am just a few years old when it comms to this. I have to practice to get better.
Bro, please increase the contextual memory of your chatbot to greater than one paragraph. 🤣🤣🤣
Alas, there is no chatbot. I despise them. There is only me, and I sometimes shoot myself in the toe by not tracing back to the original thread. My apologies.
But I was focusing on what I said about communication of information being about the reduction of uncertainty in propositions. If you don't know what the proposition is, it is nothing but uncertainty. I was not using "exactness" in that formulation.
Exactness is no proof of communication, however. Exactness would be exemplified by the alphabet or numbers. The meaning of the symbol is exact (or in the case language, nearly so). I can read pages of clearly-printed gibberish, all of it exact, and no communication.
So, I don't know where we are with this discussion. To the extent that the "symbols" used by Q are just abbreviations, they are trivial. Anything other is obscure. I see too many people treating them, de facto, as Rorschach blots, reading meaning into them from their own prejudices. It bothers me to see it so starkly, and it puts me off---as I think it would put off any "normie." Sherlock Holmes would not approve.
How does a baby learn language?
Ostensive definition and vocal imitation.
Within the Q posts is there not a catalogue of ostensive definitions--gradually built up and improved over multiple years--which we now utilize and apply to current and historical events?
Isn't my post just imitating the classic Q timestamp & date conventions and applying them to a communication from an agency (Secret Service) that is known to be linked to Q?
Am I not just a sort of child mimicking my parents (Q & the anons) and trying to speak their language--sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing?
Bear in mind, I am just a few years old when it comms to this. I have to practice to get better.