Just thought you might have sent it. On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 9:04:32 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: > > 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/unsu >>>>>>>>>> bscribe. >>>>>>>>>> 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]. >> 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.
