Shannon defines 'communication' as 'all the procedures by which one mind may affect another and then goes on to define the semantic problem ( How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning? ) and the effectiveness problem ( How effectively does the received meaning affect the conduct in the desired way? ).
In both cases it seems to me that 'intentionality' is a necessary (but insufficient) pre-requisite for understanding communicated messages.
If the clouds in the sky happened to spell out "I am thirsty." you would notch this down to some ridiculous coincidence which satisfies the Infinite monkeys theorem. There is nothing to be understood in that sentence because there is neither an intended meaning nor an expectation of effectiveness.
There is something to be understood when a human says it. When you bring that person a glass of water they have positive feedback loop that their message was effective.
Shannon defines 'communication' as 'all the procedures by which one mind may affect another and then goes on to define the semantic problem ( How precisely do the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning? ) and the effectiveness problem ( How effectively does the received meaning affect the conduct in the desired way? ).
In both cases it seems to me that 'intentionality' is a necessary (but insufficient) pre-requisite for understanding communicated messages.
If the clouds in the sky happened to spell out "I am thirsty." you would notch this down to some ridiculous coincidence which satisfies the Infinite monkeys theorem. There is nothing to be understood in that sentence because there is neither an intended meaning nor an expectation of effectiveness.
There is something to be understood when a human says it. When you bring that person a glass of water they have positive feedback loop that their message was effective.