On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them
> optically, but
> > these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information.
> Sure they do. Just try
No. That is an example of taking data associated with optical characters
and data associated with sound card signals as two given data sets and
deriving a relationship statistically. If you don't have one of those data
sets however, for example, if I make up a written language of symbols and I
decide whether or not those symbols have sounds associated with them, the
computer has no idea what I have decided. It makes no difference whether
it's my private ad hoc language or a language with millions of speakers.
> > Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic
> Have it read "Fetch the paper." to you dog and see if there's semantic
> information. Or if
> you have a modern house, have it read "Lights ON."
That depends on whether the dog understands the commands or not, doesn't
it? I remember back in the days when remote controls were actually
'clickers'. The Zenith console color TV did indeed respond differently to
the three different metallic clicks the remote made - and it also responded
randomly to keys jangling, coins spilling out on a glass table, loud
noises, etc. There is *nothing* semantic about conditioned response
behaviorism. It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together
or in what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.