Ya think!? Did I really just waste five minutes...? Let us all go home and try to regain some clarity. Interesting points all but are we done?
Alan M. On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:35 PM, shaun gilchrist <shaunxc...@gmail.com> wrote: I am now convinced we are on some sort of mailing list version of candid camera. Or maybe these messages are the product of some strange markovian email generator programmed to create dissonance by combining fringe comp sci theories with offensive social commentary normally reserved for talk radio. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Kirk Fraser <overcomer....@gmail.com> wrote: > Gath, > > So what language do you normally think in? You have stated you don't live > in America. Obviously you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh long enough to > know what liberal is. Why comment on things you know so little about? > Tune in to Rush via iheart radio and listen for about 6 weeks and you'll > have more clarity on what liberal actually means in America. > > I don't know many details about Israel but I suspect they don't misuse > their words as often as liberals do here. That in itself makes Hebrew more > efficient. > > Of course, as you wrote certain environmental factors may contribute to > overachieving but I would argue that is impossible. It is impossible to > overachieve. But that would be me exercising liberalism by going off topic > - inefficient. > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Gath-Gealaich <gath.na.geala...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Kirk Fraser <overcomer....@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I was pointing out that innovation for its own sake is worthless then >>> was agreeing with the view that not all the world's inventions come from >>> people who think in English yet pointing out communicating in English is >>> best for world wide distribution. I don't really know how many Jews who >>> won Nobel Prizes thought in Hebrew, English, or even Russian. But it is as >>> you wrote possible that Hebrew is more efficient. >> >> >> No, it's not. Whorfianism has been all but refuted. The only area in >> which the idea hold water, quite ironically, is formal/computer/programming >> languages (or so Paul Graham says, but he's right, as far as I can tell). >> >> Something about their culture tends to be productive compared to others. >>> Perhaps it's their orientation toward God, which is defined as absolute >>> spiritual perfection. That in itself would tend to produce more efficient >>> thought. >>> >> >> They've been oppressed by intellectually impoverished Christians for two >> millennia, denied the right to work in the fields of agriculture and >> crafts, and were forced to work in knowledge oriented professions such as >> medicine or finances. Of course that this nurtures a specific culture, and >> with the (most likely involuntary) need to become as indispensable for >> others as possible in over to avoid getting killed by hilt-happy Easter >> celebrators, they were virtually forced into what is usually referred to as >> overachievement (although here I have to admit, despite my former point, >> that you English people have the weirdest notions in your language). >> >> English has a property that unfortunately allows it to be redefined with >>> liberal definitions which are inefficient. >>> >> >> ^^^ This is a thoroughly nonsensical and meaningless statement. >> >> >>> Computers need smarter software to exceed the performance of Watson and >>> OpenCyc to create worthwhile innovations automatically. I think working to >>> automate Bible analysis is an efficient way to produce smarter software. >>> But based the failures of automatic translators, computers may be slow to >>> think flawlessly. >>> >> >> Again, you're completely ignoring the actual nature of speech, >> demonstrated in such phenomena as the existence of idiolects, referential >> indeterminacy, diachronic shifts etc. Language is what it is because >> there's a common sense component to its processing in our brains, and once >> you have that, you've successfully replicated a human being in silicon. >> Until that happens, all bets are off. >> >> (I'm tempted to wager that the inverse also holds, >> has_human_intelligence(X) :- understands_language(X). Although the fact >> that an average human being picked from your general population often fails >> at simple logical reasoning sort of suggests that the intelligence is of a >> slightly different kind that what we usually mean by saying "he's >> intelligent"/"he's a genius".) >> >> - Gath >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> fonc@vpri.org >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> > > > -- > Kirk W. Fraser > http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true > church. > http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its > Christian foundation. > http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
