There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: OT: Quantum physics and the mind (was: Are right-branching langu
From: Garth Wallace
1b. Re: OT: Quantum physics and the mind (was: Are right-branching langu
From: Patrick Dunn
1c. Re: OT: Quantum physics and the mind (was: Are right-branching langu
From: Micah Johnston
1d. Re: OT: Quantum physics and the mind (was: Are right-branching langu
From: Patrick Dunn
2a. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
From: Jim Henry
2b. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
From: Douglas Koller
2c. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
From: Patrick Dunn
2d. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
From: Mechthild Czapp
2e. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
From: Roger Mills
2f. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
From: Roger Mills
3a. Re: A Robot's Natural Language (WAS: Human vs.programming languages)
From: Micah Johnston
3b. Re: A Robot's Natural Language (WAS: Human vs.programming languages)
From: Gary Shannon
Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: OT: Quantum physics and the mind (was: Are right-branching langu
Posted by: "Garth Wallace" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 9:43 am ((PDT))
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Gary Shannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Science is definitely the right tool for studying the things
> that science is good at studying. But it's not the right tool for
> EVERYTHING.
This is kind of a red herring, though, because we're talking about how
the brain works, and figuring out how something works is exactly what
science is good at.
What it's not good at is taking the conclusions it reaches about how
things work and extrapolating a system of ethics from them. Any
attempt to do so rests on the assumption that just because something
*does work* one way, things *should work* that way (that is, it's
*good* for them to work that way), and you end up with things like
so-called "social darwinism". Science is great at description, not so
useful for judgement calls.
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: OT: Quantum physics and the mind (was: Are right-branching langu
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 11:56 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Njenfalgar <[email protected]> wrote:
> @ Gary: I'm quite surprised by your descriptions of this "scientism". Never
> heard of such a thing, nor of anything resembling what you're describing.
> But maybe I'm living/working in a place with too many sensible people...
It's a common metaphysical and epistemological position, held by a
number of quite sensible people, myself included. It's sometimes
referred to as "nonoverlapping magisteria." In short, physical,
repeatable, and objectively observable phenomena are suitable for one
kind of epistemological "magisterium." Other phenomena -- the
metaphysical, unrepeatable, or subjective -- may not be. For example,
it would be odd for a scientist to devise an experiment to determine
whether or not he really loves his wife. He simply knows it as a
subjective experience.
The reason we still have art departments, literary criticism
departments, and so forth is that these areas are less suitable for
the methods of science. Other methods work better to create knowledge
about these areas.
I suspect the reason you have not heard of this is that many
scientists are not trained in the philosophy of science; in fact, many
of them don't really know that it *is* a philosophy, specifically an
epistemology, founded on unexamined and unobservable axioms.
I'm not certain that "sensibility" has much to do with it.
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: OT: Quantum physics and the mind (was: Are right-branching langu
Posted by: "Micah Johnston" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 12:34 pm ((PDT))
However, when trying to discover how the human brain works, science is very
much more sensible than "Humans appear to have free will. Quantum mechanics
is inherently random and unpredictable in some ways. Therefore, the human
brain must rely on quantum effects!"
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:46:20 -0500, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Njenfalgar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> @ Gary: I'm quite surprised by your descriptions of this "scientism". Never
>> heard of such a thing, nor of anything resembling what you're describing.
>> But maybe I'm living/working in a place with too many sensible people...
>
>It's a common metaphysical and epistemological position, held by a
>number of quite sensible people, myself included. It's sometimes
>referred to as "nonoverlapping magisteria." In short, physical,
>repeatable, and objectively observable phenomena are suitable for one
>kind of epistemological "magisterium." Other phenomena -- the
>metaphysical, unrepeatable, or subjective -- may not be. For example,
>it would be odd for a scientist to devise an experiment to determine
>whether or not he really loves his wife. He simply knows it as a
>subjective experience.
>
>The reason we still have art departments, literary criticism
>departments, and so forth is that these areas are less suitable for
>the methods of science. Other methods work better to create knowledge
>about these areas.
>
>I suspect the reason you have not heard of this is that many
>scientists are not trained in the philosophy of science; in fact, many
>of them don't really know that it *is* a philosophy, specifically an
>epistemology, founded on unexamined and unobservable axioms.
>
>I'm not certain that "sensibility" has much to do with it.
>
>--
>I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
>to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
>Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: OT: Quantum physics and the mind (was: Are right-branching langu
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 1:08 pm ((PDT))
That I agree with. Neurology is a field for science. Just as long as
those neurologists don't make the category mistake that the brain *is*
the mind, we're good.
Plus, I think the magisteria do overlap -- I'm more of a "fuzzy
magisteria" kind of guy.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Micah Johnston <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, when trying to discover how the human brain works, science is very
> much more sensible than "Humans appear to have free will. Quantum mechanics
> is inherently random and unpredictable in some ways. Therefore, the human
> brain must rely on quantum effects!"
>
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:46:20 -0500, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Njenfalgar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> @ Gary: I'm quite surprised by your descriptions of this "scientism". Never
>>> heard of such a thing, nor of anything resembling what you're describing.
>>> But maybe I'm living/working in a place with too many sensible people...
>>
>>It's a common metaphysical and epistemological position, held by a
>>number of quite sensible people, myself included. It's sometimes
>>referred to as "nonoverlapping magisteria." In short, physical,
>>repeatable, and objectively observable phenomena are suitable for one
>>kind of epistemological "magisterium." Other phenomena -- the
>>metaphysical, unrepeatable, or subjective -- may not be. For example,
>>it would be odd for a scientist to devise an experiment to determine
>>whether or not he really loves his wife. He simply knows it as a
>>subjective experience.
>>
>>The reason we still have art departments, literary criticism
>>departments, and so forth is that these areas are less suitable for
>>the methods of science. Other methods work better to create knowledge
>>about these areas.
>>
>>I suspect the reason you have not heard of this is that many
>>scientists are not trained in the philosophy of science; in fact, many
>>of them don't really know that it *is* a philosophy, specifically an
>>epistemology, founded on unexamined and unobservable axioms.
>>
>>I'm not certain that "sensibility" has much to do with it.
>>
>>--
>>I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
>>to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
>>Rimbaud
>
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
Posted by: "Jim Henry" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 10:15 am ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Charlie <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2) the ability to easily form words from affixes
> I don't see `easily' as necessary to the definition. Either words can be
> formed from affixes or they can't. There are not degrees of ease or
> difficulty.
Well, some languages have more productive derivational affixes than
others, and it may be that among languages with roughly equally
productive derivational morphologies, some are spoken by cultures that
encourage individual speakers to coin new words, others by cultures
that discourage this practice.
--
Jim Henry
http://www.pobox.com/~jimhenry/
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
Posted by: "Douglas Koller" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 11:14 am ((PDT))
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Henry" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 1:10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Charlie <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2) the ability to easily form words from affixes
> I don't see `easily' as necessary to the definition. Either words can be
> formed from affixes or they can't. There are not degrees of ease or
> difficulty.
Well, some languages have more productive derivational affixes than
others, and it may be that among languages with roughly equally
productive derivational morphologies, some are spoken by cultures that
encourage individual speakers to coin new words, others by cultures
that discourage this practice.
I think the word "easily" got misplaced somewhere in the discussion. I took it
to mean that non-native speakers could "easily" parse a heretofore unknown
word, because the morphemes were *easily* transparent. Take an experience in
Taiwan. I need "reinforcements". I looked it up in the dictionary and couldn't
find anything. So I went to the stationery store and said, I need "rings"
(quan1) that "reinforce" (jia1qiang2). "Oh," she said, "you mean
'jia1qiang2quan1 (reinforcement rings)'" Gee, wish I'd thought of that. As it
turns out, that's the word! Which kind of proves your point, too.
Kou
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
Posted by: "Patrick Dunn" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 11:37 am ((PDT))
My anthropologist friend had a similar experience in Indonesia. He
wanted to say "tears" as in, lacrimal duct secretions. But he didn't
know the word so he said, "What's the word for water of the eyes (air
mata)?"
Turns out, it's "air mata."
Of course, for every example of transparent derivation, there are
probably two examples of idiosyncratic derivation. It just seems that
English has an awful lot of them. Probably native language blindness.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Douglas Koller <[email protected]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Henry" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 1:10:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
>
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Charlie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 2) the ability to easily form words from affixes
>
>> I don't see `easily' as necessary to the definition. Either words can be
>> formed from affixes or they can't. There are not degrees of ease or
>> difficulty.
>
> Well, some languages have more productive derivational affixes than
> others, and it may be that among languages with roughly equally
> productive derivational morphologies, some are spoken by cultures that
> encourage individual speakers to coin new words, others by cultures
> that discourage this practice.
>
> I think the word "easily" got misplaced somewhere in the discussion. I took
> it to mean that non-native speakers could "easily" parse a heretofore unknown
> word, because the morphemes were *easily* transparent. Take an experience in
> Taiwan. I need "reinforcements". I looked it up in the dictionary and
> couldn't find anything. So I went to the stationery store and said, I need
> "rings" (quan1) that "reinforce" (jia1qiang2). "Oh," she said, "you mean
> 'jia1qiang2quan1 (reinforcement rings)'" Gee, wish I'd thought of that. As it
> turns out, that's the word! Which kind of proves your point, too.
>
> Kou
>
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
Rimbaud
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
Posted by: "Mechthild Czapp" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 11:45 am ((PDT))
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 13:10:10 -0400
> Von: Jim Henry <[email protected]>
> An: [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Charlie <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > 2) the ability to easily form words from affixes
>
> > I don't see `easily' as necessary to the definition. Either words can
> be formed from affixes or they can't. There are not degrees of ease or
> difficulty.
>
> Well, some languages have more productive derivational affixes than
> others, and it may be that among languages with roughly equally
> productive derivational morphologies, some are spoken by cultures that
> encourage individual speakers to coin new words, others by cultures
> that discourage this practice.
>
Exactly that was what I meant. In languages like German, words like unkaputtbar
or Unabsteigbarkeit are often seen as 'not really words' by laypeople, while I
feel that nemalpromociebleco might not cause too many complaints about it being
incorrect. This is part of what I meant by easily. Not only that it is
possible, but that it is done and accepted.
--
Sanja'xen mi'lanja'kynha ,mi'la'ohix'ta jilih, nka.
My life would be easy if it was not so hard!
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 12:01 pm ((PDT))
--- On Wed, 8/4/10, Patrick Dunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> My anthropologist friend had a
> similar experience in Indonesia. He
> wanted to say "tears" as in, lacrimal duct
> secretions. But he didn't
> know the word so he said, "What's the word for water of the
> eyes (air
> mata)?"
>
> Turns out, it's "air mata."
>
And the amusing thing is that "mata air" means 'spring (of water)'. Mata as
head noun generally means 'main part of...' as in mata pisau (knife) 'blade of
a knife', mata rumah (house) 'head of household, paterfamilias', extended in
some languages to refer to the Christian God.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
2f. Re: Translation excercise: Unabsteigbarkeit
Posted by: "Roger Mills" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 12:18 pm ((PDT))
> Mechthild Czapp <0zu...@...> wrote:
> >
> > So, my question is: How do you translate the two
> concepts ("the
> > ability of a team not to be relegated into a lower
> league"....
(and applicable to other situations as well, I assume....)
Kash can do it, but it's an awkward nonce-compound:
traporungundraya
tra- (~ tar-) un-
po- 'able to (be...,' it passivizes a trans. verb)
rungure 'to lower, debase' causative (ruN-) of kure 'low'
naya 'kind, sort; status'
'unable to be lowered w.r.t. status'
and "the
> > ability to easily form words from affixes")?
> >
no idea on this one :-((( it would have to be a phrase I think, not a single
word.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: A Robot's Natural Language (WAS: Human vs.programming languages)
Posted by: "Micah Johnston" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 5:57 pm ((PDT))
There are some really cool ideas here. I really like the idea of a world of
robot "cells" that have evolved into complex life, and the languages that
arise between these organisms are really cool to think about.
However, I think computers talking to each other would end up using
something more like machine language, or maybe a communication protocol,
rather than the textual programming languages that are sort of applied math.
Messages in this topic (9)
________________________________________________________________________
3b. Re: A Robot's Natural Language (WAS: Human vs.programming languages)
Posted by: "Gary Shannon" [email protected]
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2010 6:21 pm ((PDT))
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Micah Johnston <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are some really cool ideas here. I really like the idea of a world of
> robot "cells" that have evolved into complex life, and the languages that
> arise between these organisms are really cool to think about.
>
> However, I think computers talking to each other would end up using
> something more like machine language, or maybe a communication protocol,
> rather than the textual programming languages that are sort of applied math.
True. But that makes such languages so much harder to talk about. :)
Beside, it would be comforting to think these robots evolved certain
human-like traits that made them, if not likable, at least relate-able
to humans. Besides, if they got to the point of abstract thinking and
creating literature then maybe they would use something non-textual
that could at least be transliterated into textual form when contact
was made with humans.
--gary
Messages in this topic (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
