On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:06 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> > >>> if he >>> [Bruno] >>> slips back to talking like a normal person you have this shitty argument >>> ready to deploy. >> >> >> Normal language doesn't work worth a damn if people duplicating >> machines are involved; >> > > > It works fine. Duplication machines introduce new types of ambiguity. > Natural language tolerates ambiguity and provides way to disambiguate when > necessary. This is why wikipedia works. Check this out: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John > > Can you see how it's possible to have a page about a term as ambiguous as > "John"? > > This is also why it is so hard to program computers to use natural > language, it's possible an AI-complete problem. It requires a lot of > knowledge and contextual awareness to use. This is also why it's sometimes > harder to communicate by email than face-to-face. A lot of contextual clues > are hidden. Ambiguity is the default mode of operation of natural language. > But you can use tricks to solve any ambiguity, just like Wikipedia does and > just like Bruno does. > > >> precise language is a necessity and so is precise reasoning. >> > > And yet you ridicule any attempt at introducing technical terms in this > discussion, because you consider them "home made", whatever the fuck that > means. I suspect it means that you have to publish at least 3 articles in > Science/Nature and have a PhD from a top American university to be allowed > to introduce a new technical term. Or something along those lines. > > >> At this point there is simply no excuse to continue to babble about "you" >> and " *the *1p", especially if it's coming from a logician. >> > > You are not arguing in good faith. If Bruno uses natural language, he's > babbling. If he uses technical terms and mathematical formalism, he's using > poopoo terminology. Arguing with you is attempting to play a game that > cannot be won. This is a gigantic waste of time. > > Telmo. > > Prediction: John will find one nugget of something he can argue in Telmo's otherwise excellent response, and delete everything else from his response. His argument will involve some inane technicality that has been repeated at least 400 times by now and thus the list's tar-baby <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby> will continue to garner attention. Terren -- 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.
