Timidly lurking out of your rat hole to see if Big Daddy has left some
crumbs for you? But no, in Neil's ecosystem the coffee machine owners in no
way resemble King Mice! Silly me!
Am Montag, 2. März 2015 schrieb :
> (",)
>
> تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين
> Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: archytas <[email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
> To: [email protected]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
> Sent: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 10:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Götterdämmerung
>
> 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/to
>>>>> pic/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]
> <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.
