John, You brought up some interesting points...
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:54 PM, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com>wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> > > wrote: > > "statements of stupidity" - some of these are examples of cramming > > sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text. > > > > Definitely, as even the thoughts of stupid people transcends our > (present) > > ability to state what is happening behind their eyeballs. Most stupidity > is > > probably beyond simple recognition. For the initial moment, I was just > > looking at the linguistic low hanging fruit. > > You are talking about, those phrases, some are clichés, There seems to be no clear boundary between clichés and other stupid statements, except maybe that clichés are exactly quoted like "that's just your opinion" while other statements are grammatically adapted to fit the sentences and paragraphs that they inhabit. Dr. Eliza already translates idioms before processing. I could add clichés without changing a line of code, e.g. "that's just your opinion" might translate into something like "I am too stupid to to understand your explanation". Dr. Eliza has an extensive wildcard handler, so it should be able to handle the majority of grammatically adapted statements in the same way, by simply including appropriate wildcards in the pattern. are like local K > complexity minima, in a knowledge graph of partial linguistic structure, > where neural computational energy is preserved, and the statements are > patterns with isomorphisms to other experiential knowledge intra and inter > agent. That is, other illogical misunderstanding of the real world, which are probably NOT shared with more intelligent agents. This present a serious problem with understanding by more intelligent agents. More intelligent agents have ways of working more optimally with the > neural computational energy, perhaps by using other more efficient patterns > thus avoiding those particular detrimental pattern/statements. ... and this present a communications problem with agents with radically different intelligences, both greater and lesser. > But the > statements are catchy because they are common and allow some minimization > of > computational energy as well as they are like objects in a higher level > communication protocol. To store them is less bits and transfer is less > bits > per second. However, they have negative information content - if that is possible, because they require a false model of the world to process, and produce completely erroneous results. Of course, despite these problems, they DO somewhat accurately communicate the erroneous nature of the thinking, so there IS some value there. > Their impact is maximal since they are isomorphic across > knowledge and experience. ... the ultimate being: Do, or do not. There is no "try". > At some point they may just become symbols due to > their pre-calculated commonness. > Egad, symbols to display stupidity. Could linguistics have anything that is WORSE?! > > > Language is both intelligence enhancing and limiting. Human language is a > > protocol between agents. So there is minimalist data transfer, "I had no > > choice but to ..." is a compressed summary of potentially vastly complex > > issues. > > > > My point is that they could have left the country, killed their > adversaries, > > taken on a new ID, or done any number of radical things that they > probably > > never considered, other than taking whatever action they chose to take. A > > more accurate statement might be "I had no apparent rational choice but > to > > ...". > > The other low probability choices are lossily compressed out of the > expressed statement pattern. It's assumed that there were other choices, > usually factored in during the communicational complexity related > decompression, being situational. The onus at times is on the person > listening to the stupid statement. > I see. This example was in reality a "gapped" or "ellipsis", where reasonably presumed words were omitted. These are always a challenge, except in common places like clichés where the missing words can be automatically inserted. Thanks again for your thoughts. Steve ============= > > > The mind gets hung-up sometimes on this language of ours. Better off at > > times to think less using English language and express oneself with a > wider > > spectrum communiqué. Doing a dance and throwing paint in the air for > > example, as some *primitive* cultures actually do, conveys information > also > > and is medium of expression rather than using a restrictive human chat > > protocol. > > > > You are saying that the problem is that our present communication permits > > statements of stupidity, so we shouldn't have our present system of > > communication? Scrap English?!!! I consider statements of stupidity as a > sort > > of communications checksum, to see if real interchange of ideas is even > > possible. Often, it is quite impossible to communicate new ideas to > inflexible- > > minded people. > > > > Of course not scrap English, too ingrained. Though it is rather limiting > and > I've never seen an alternative that isn't in the same region of > limitingness > 'cept perhaps mathematics. But that is limited too in many ways due to > symbology and its usual dimensional representation. > > > BTW the rules of etiquette of the human language "protocol" are even more > > potentially restricting though necessary for efficient and standardized > data > > transfer to occur. Like, TCP/IP for example. The "Etiquette" in TCP/IP is > like > > an OSI layer, akin to human language etiquette. > > > > I'm not sure how this relates, other than possibly identifying people who > > don't honor linguistic etiquette as being (potentially) stupid. Was that > your > > point? > > > > Well, agents (us) communicate. There is a communication protocol. The > protocol has layers, sort of. Patterns and chunks of patterns, common ones > are passed between agents. These get put into the knowledge/intelligence > graph and operated on and with, stored, replicated, etc.. Linguistic > restrictions in some ways cause the bottlenecks. The language, English in > this case, has rules of etiquette, where violations can cause breakdowns of > the informational transfer efficiency and coordination unless other > effective pattern channels exist - for example music - some types of chants > violate normal English etiquette yet can convey almost > linguistically(proper) indescribable information. > > John > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
