On 7/16/2013 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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
Why not? Being a broken line vs a differentiable line is a computable
property. The difference between "k" sounds and "b" sounds is
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Or are you asking how "k" came to
associated with "broken line" or how the written letter "k" was
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
them with the curvy figure or the pointy figure without some arbitrary link
provided programmatically. This suggests that there exists within human
purely aesthetic, elemental associations which are synthetic a priori
arrived at mechanically. A computer can't tell that there is anything
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.
And success in stroking your ego that wants humans to be special.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.