A blizzard just started here as I read that Gabby. Must be a sign. The machines don't get god, though they could work on such as AI religious guides.
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 8:04:22 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: > > 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]> 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]> >>>>>> 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] >>>>>>> >: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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]> 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]. >>>>>>>>> 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]. >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >> >> --- >> 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]. >> 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.
