On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:18:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> On 7/16/2013 12:37 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:32:28 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>> On 7/15/2013 2:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> Would this kind of universality of human sense-making be likely if the
>> connections between words, shapes, and feelings were purely computational?
>> Why not? Being a broken line vs a differentiable line is a computable
>> property. The difference between "k" sounds and "b" sounds is computable.
>> So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Or are you asking how "k" came to
>> be associated with "broken line" or how the written letter "k" was
>> associated with the phonetic sound of "k"?
> I'm saying that a computer which is programmed to differentiate between
> the phonemes of 'ki-ki' and 'bou-ba' would have zero chance of associating
> either of them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some
> arbitrary link being provided programmatically. This suggests that there
> exists within human experience purely aesthetic, elemental associations
> which are synthetic a priori rather than arrived at mechanically. A
> computer can't tell that there is anything inherently curvy about the sound
> of bouba, but a person can.
> Sez you. I think you're just suffering from a failure of imagination.
You say failure of imagination, I say success avoiding the pathetic fallacy.
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.