> -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Richfield [mailto:[email protected]] > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:09 AM, John G. Rose <[email protected]> > 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, 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. 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. 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. Their impact is maximal since they are isomorphic across knowledge and experience. At some point they may just become symbols due to their pre-calculated commonness. > 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. > 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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
