Which is why I find the God view so interesting. All rhetorics and comfort zone exodus talking automatically ends here.
Am Montag, 2. März 2015 schrieb archytas : > Humans tend to think they do argument well - even those failed by > schools. It's interesting most people have little clue what argument > itself is about. Few get very far when asked to explain how they argue and > the 'smarter' fall back on some simple rhetoric training they had on > fallacies and the like. > Argumentation is a highly interdisciplinary field with links to > psychology, linguistics, philosophy, legal theory, and formal logic. Since > the advent of the computer age, formal models of argument have been > materialized in different systems that implement — or at least support — > creation, evaluation, and judgement of arguments. Dung's idea of evaluating > arguments on an abstract level by taking only their inter-relationships > into account, not only has been shown to underlie many of the earlier > approaches for argumentation, but also uniformly captures several > non-monotonic logics. This located Argumentation as a sub-discipline of > Artificial Intelligence. . > > One particular feature of abstract argumentation frameworks is their > simple structure. In fact, abstract argumentation frameworks are just > directed graphs where vertices play the role of arguments and edges > indicate a certain conflict between the two connected arguments. These > argumentation frameworks are usually derived during an instantiation > process where structured arguments are investigated with respect to their > ability to contradict other such arguments; the actual notion of > “contradicting” can be instantiated in many different forms. Having > generated the framework in such a way, the process of > “conflict-resolution”, i.e., the search for jointly acceptable sets of > arguments, is then delegated to semantics which operate on the abstract > level. Thus, semantics for argumentation frameworks have also been referred > to as calculi of opposition. > > Stripping our argument for easier translation is not the way we are going > in our chats with machines and with humans still leaves problems with the > knowledge and dispositions of the recipients - including whether they will > try at all, especially if a world-view they are comfortable with is > challenged. > > On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 5:22:19 AM UTC, archytas wrote: >> >> Most human communication probably isn't directly conscious, so maybe >> there's some unconscious hope. Something of what Gabby said on 'wobbly' >> goes on in the machines. Fuzzy Description Logics (DLs) can be used to >> represent and reason with vague knowledge. This family of logical >> formalisms is very diverse, each member being characterized by a specific >> choice of constructors,axioms, and triangular norms, which are used to >> specify the semantics.They form the base language for many large-scale >> knowledge bases, like Snomed CT and the Gene Ontology, but their largest >> success to date is the language OWL as the standard ontology language for >> the Semantic Web. DLs essentially allow to state relations between >> concepts, which represent subsets of a specific domain containing exactly >> those domain elements that share certain properties. Roles correspond to >> binary relations that allow to state connections between concepts. >> In their classical form, however, DLs are not well-suited for >> representing and reasoning with the vagueness and imprecision that are >> endemic to many knowledge domains, e.g. in the bio-medical fields. One of >> the most common symptoms of diseases is the presence of fever, which is >> characterized by a high body >> temperature. Clearly, it is not possible to* precisely* distinguish high >> body temperatures from non-high body temperatures. In order to >> appropriately represent this knowledge, it is necessary to use a formalism >> capable of handling imprecision. Fuzzy variants of DLs have been introduced >> as a means of handling imprecise >> terminological knowledge. This is achieved by interpreting concepts as >> fuzzy sets. In a nutshell, a fuzzy set associates with every element of the >> universe a value from the interval [0, 1], which expresses its degree of >> membership to the set. This makes it possible to express, e.g. that 38◦C is >> a high body temperature to >> degree 0.7, while 39◦C belongs to the same concept with degree 1. >> >> Of course, one hardly puts this kind of linguistic and mathematical >> effort in with humans. One cannot reliably determine whether they are >> switched on or merely programmed like an attack dog with a spleen problem. >> I can see the point in translation for the machine, but humans are so >> stupid they choose the wrong end of the stick, even when correctly marked. >> >> >> The ability to manage vague and imprecise knowledge is a desired feature >> of intelligent systems to be used in the biological and medical domains, >> among many others.Studying the complexity of reasoning with different fuzzy >> DLs allows us to discern which of these may be suitable formalisms for >> implementing a fuzzy knowledge representation and reasoning system. Anyone >> who thinks the machines aren't as smart as us should compare argument here >> with the chats one can have with a modern database. >> >> http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/research/papers/2015/BoDP-AI15.pdf >> >> >> On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 4:12:37 AM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I'm sure they eventually will. The Singularity and all that. I >>> wonder if we'll achieve the same level of communication growth. >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:24 PM, archytas <[email protected] >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>> >>>> Quatsch is rather tame and an interesting example in your terms Chris. >>>> I heard Schmarrn more often (Austria). Inflexion, tone and the rest would >>>> be key - just as rubbish could be a nice response to a fairy tale story or >>>> rather nasty as from a finger-wagging harridan teacher. Machines can >>>> interpret these these things over time. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 7:08:56 PM UTC, Chris Jenkins wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Brilliant! I'll be using that from now on. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 2:05 PM, gabbydott <[email protected] >>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't know, but I would translate it as "Quatsch". Equally wobbly >>>>>> sound. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> 2015-03-01 20:01 GMT+01:00 Chris Jenkins <[email protected] >>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, but I never belittled your language competence, Gabby! What I >>>>>>> said in American English was that I wondered sometimes if I missed an >>>>>>> intended meaning in the translation. And, inputting my American English >>>>>>> into Google Translated German English was a perfect example of that; >>>>>>> little >>>>>>> of my intended meaning was originally clear to German speakers I reckon, >>>>>>> and translating back to American English renders it not much more than >>>>>>> gibberish. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What does gibberish translate to in German? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Gabby <[email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Heyo Chrissy, my eternal savior! I appreciate very much your >>>>>>>> attempt at saving whatever was never there. The ring is just a >>>>>>>> parable, but >>>>>>>> I will soon have gone full circle again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And hey, I'd rather you accused me of foul language than belittling >>>>>>>> my language competence! Your German English sounds just like your >>>>>>>> American >>>>>>>> English by the way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I find it noticeable how you come to think that the long gone >>>>>>>> Francis might be of help while I perceive others, who are presently >>>>>>>> active >>>>>>>> in this interpretations club, who are doing a much better job. Anyways. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I joined this group because of the topic keywords and the writing >>>>>>>> "Minds Eye", which in my eyes allowed for singular as well as plural >>>>>>>> interpretations due to the "oral markers". The vast majority of active >>>>>>>> posters was Americans, which I got to know as loud, dominant, >>>>>>>> aggressive. >>>>>>>> And their strategically silent, submissive, passive-aggressive >>>>>>>> counterparts >>>>>>>> of course. My aim was to not get worked up anymore by what I perceive >>>>>>>> here, >>>>>>>> which I haven't fully managed to reach yet. But I have learned so much >>>>>>>> already about the power of manipulation and distraction and emotional >>>>>>>> dependencies in what you'd think was banal online chatting ... >>>>>>>> amazing! I >>>>>>>> will still write up a little lessons learned micro article on the >>>>>>>> difference between the American and the German understanding of God and >>>>>>>> post it here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In my opinion this place is not dead because Neil has adopted it as >>>>>>>> his personal writing playground, which no one objects to. That's fine >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> me and tells me I'm late with my project. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greetings once more across the Atlantic! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 1. März 2015 01:56:27 UTC+1 schrieb Chris Jenkins: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Was passiert, wenn der einzige Weg, wie wir kommunizieren konnte, >>>>>>>>> war durch Fremdsoftware nicht in der Lage zu verstehen, unsere >>>>>>>>> Emotionen? >>>>>>>>> Die digitale Kommunikation nicht Ton jetzt vermitteln, sich >>>>>>>>> vorstellen, >>>>>>>>> wenn sie verloren auch Nuancen in der Übersetzung? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ich denke an das, weil ich die Gespräche in dieser Gruppe häufig >>>>>>>>> brechen in zwei Menschen aneinander vorbei sprechen. Ich frage mich, >>>>>>>>> wenn >>>>>>>>> sie die anderen Lautsprecher verstehen überhaupt. Wenn unsere Worte >>>>>>>>> verloren nicht nur ihr Ton, sondern auch ihre heimatlichen Dialekt; >>>>>>>>> wenn >>>>>>>>> sie etwas wurde noch der Sprecher nicht verstehen, bevor sie von einer >>>>>>>>> anderen Person erhalten, würden wir in der Lage, überhaupt zu >>>>>>>>> kommunizieren? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ich wünschte, Fran waren hier, um zu wiegen; er würde haben >>>>>>>>> Einblick Ich würde wertvoll wie ein englischer Muttersprachler, die >>>>>>>>> so viel >>>>>>>>> Zeit in einem Land mit einer anderen als seiner Muttersprache >>>>>>>>> verbracht >>>>>>>>> hat, zu finden. Gabby hat ähnliche Einsicht gegeben, wie viel Zeit >>>>>>>>> sie in >>>>>>>>> englischer Sprache bei uns verbringt, (und wie oft habe ich gefragt, >>>>>>>>> ob ich >>>>>>>>> einen Sinn in der Übersetzung verpasst), aber ich nehme an, sie werden >>>>>>>>> meist nur Spaß meines schlecht übersetzt machen Deutsch. : D >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to [email protected] >>>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >>>>>>> pic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected] >>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected] >>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/wo_ToDMnO4s/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
