Not my problem. Sunshine here. Am Montag, 2. März 2015 schrieb archytas :
> 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 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.
