Esquilax, your argument about the computer program generating cards with unique information really makes my point. Did the computer itself create the program that allowed the generation of those cards? No, there were intelligent programmers behind it that allowed for that generation to be possible.
The computer code and and computer material are separate. Does the computer create the code itself? You even stated that the code is put on there. Great, by who?? It requires an intelligence to conceive it, create it and deploy it.
So now you are claiming that little old me has proven that the definition of language is even wider than we originally thought? I think you give me too much credit. We as humans when we see language assume a mind. You cannot look at a menu item at a restaurant and not assume that someone wrote it.
The hidden premise in my analogy is NOT that all languages are the same, but more so that all languages assume a mind behind them, but I didn't feel a need to state that premise as I assumed that was an innate human understanding. Semiotics requires both a mind to create it and a mind to interpret it.
The computer code and and computer material are separate. Does the computer create the code itself? You even stated that the code is put on there. Great, by who?? It requires an intelligence to conceive it, create it and deploy it.
So now you are claiming that little old me has proven that the definition of language is even wider than we originally thought? I think you give me too much credit. We as humans when we see language assume a mind. You cannot look at a menu item at a restaurant and not assume that someone wrote it.
The hidden premise in my analogy is NOT that all languages are the same, but more so that all languages assume a mind behind them, but I didn't feel a need to state that premise as I assumed that was an innate human understanding. Semiotics requires both a mind to create it and a mind to interpret it.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.