Brent I could not resist the punny imitation of the (same?) word. The first
"meant"<G> an explanatory - "i.e." - while the second in:
*I proposed the 'inter-lego' classic, *[Lat.]
* meaning to "read" (=understand **act out, apply, etc.) the meanings
BETWEEN the exactly worded lines **(not as exactly spelled out
verbatim)*
* ...*
refers to the 'stuff' we talk about (Please, don't ask: what is *'stuff'*).
Sorry that's my style in this 5th (6th?) of my learned languages.
(Especially when talking about that darn 'intelligence').
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:47 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> First we'd have to figure out what "means" means. :-)
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 9/6/2014 1:48 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Jeez - Liz, correction!!!
> *( a lot of megabytes have been wasted because people don't agree on what
> something means)*
> you may have meant: ...on what we THINK a 'meaning' may be ...?
> Who knows what something (anything) REALLY means? - not me, for sure.
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:06 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jeez, and I thought intelligence was the easy one. But yes, using the
>> same definitions is important, a lot of megabytes have been wasted because
>> people don't agree on what something means (I won't mention free
>> will...oops.)
>>
>>
>> On 6 September 2014 09:18, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> After reading lots of repeats by otherwise smart people on the topic:
>>> do we have a concensus on this list (narrow target enough?) about
>>> some identification of * intelligence? * (forget Wiki!)
>>>
>>> I proposed the* 'inter-lego'* classic, meaning to *"read"*
>>> (=understand
>>> act out, apply, etc.) the meanings BETWEEN the exactly worded lines
>>> (not as exactly spelled out verbatim). It requires a WIDER view, some
>>> anticipatory talent maybe, some combinatorical capability and so on).
>>>
>>> There was not too much appreciation (indeed: no reflections at all).
>>>
>>> On *'artificial'* I have a weaker opinion: in our usage of language
>>> the
>>> word directs my mind towards *'speculative'* - as both man-confounded,
>>> or contraption-erected results - or both. (I wonder why 'my mind' does
>>> avert from the* 'naturally grown'* as artificial? Indeed Mme.Nature is
>>> also
>>> just human. Or so we think.
>>> Maybe I would lose my agnostic wisdom (ha ha) of unknowable and
>>> unfathomable pressures directing the *CHANGE* in the world).
>>>
>>> So: are we ready to vote for 'intelligence'? (Not the CIA, mind you!).
>>>
>>> John M
>>>
>>
> --
> 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 [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
