Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On 05/04/2013, at 7:19 AM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: The main source of invention is not math wins as described on http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be speaking math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions that improve the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to tasks that involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic such as in statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if logic is not given priority over the tools of math. For human value, readability is required, so computer language improvements must focus on natural language. Your assumptive base is incorrect. You're assuming because all the world speaks english english has won in terms of being the main source of innovation. That's not correct reasoning. Julian___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Okay, SICP, EOPL and TAPL I've worked out (own/am working through slowly). But ItoA? Google wasn't exactly helpful here. On 4 April 2013 22:22, Gath-Gealaich gath.na.geala...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: Fortran was displaced in business because early Fortran had no structures and random record-oriented file access, and because of some silly government requirements for computer system procurement. Not according to management at Champion International. I have no idea what Champion International is and why I should care, but I *do* know that the US DoD made an early requirement for all computer system providers in defense contracts to provide all computer systems with COBOL, and that was it. I am guessing the three fundamentals educators agree to are implemented in obscure ways in the languages you are thinking of. For example in primitives or composition. My three fundamentals come specifically from Sussman and Abelson. If Sussman and Abelson don't qualify as educators, then I don't know who else does. Note that I'm ignoring all the crappy educators who actually display a severe syndrome of tunnel vision in their textbooks, such as those that I was forced to endure in my youth before I found *actual* quality education materials such as SICP, EOPL, TAPL, ItoA etc. The Bible is the fundamental document of America's Founders Book X is a fundamental document of person Y is a meaningless syntactic structure, unless you actually want to claim that there is Ben Franklin's biography stashed somewhere in the Books of Kings. which made the most important and powerful nation in the world rise from 13 colonies. Thus you lost your bet. I bow to your awesome powers of non sequitur. - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On 2013-04-05 11:40AM, Piers Cawley wrote: Okay, SICP, EOPL and TAPL I've worked out (own/am working through slowly). But ItoA? Google wasn't exactly helpful here. Probably _Introduction to Algorithms_ by Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest, and Stein. --Josh ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Hi, I don't think this acronym is in wide use, but probably Introduction To Algorithms by Cormen was meant. Cheers, Jarosław Rzeszótko 2013/4/5 Piers Cawley pdcaw...@bofh.org.uk Okay, SICP, EOPL and TAPL I've worked out (own/am working through slowly). But ItoA? Google wasn't exactly helpful here. On 4 April 2013 22:22, Gath-Gealaich gath.na.geala...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: Fortran was displaced in business because early Fortran had no structures and random record-oriented file access, and because of some silly government requirements for computer system procurement. Not according to management at Champion International. I have no idea what Champion International is and why I should care, but I *do* know that the US DoD made an early requirement for all computer system providers in defense contracts to provide all computer systems with COBOL, and that was it. I am guessing the three fundamentals educators agree to are implemented in obscure ways in the languages you are thinking of. For example in primitives or composition. My three fundamentals come specifically from Sussman and Abelson. If Sussman and Abelson don't qualify as educators, then I don't know who else does. Note that I'm ignoring all the crappy educators who actually display a severe syndrome of tunnel vision in their textbooks, such as those that I was forced to endure in my youth before I found *actual* quality education materials such as SICP, EOPL, TAPL, ItoA etc. The Bible is the fundamental document of America's Founders Book X is a fundamental document of person Y is a meaningless syntactic structure, unless you actually want to claim that there is Ben Franklin's biography stashed somewhere in the Books of Kings. which made the most important and powerful nation in the world rise from 13 colonies. Thus you lost your bet. I bow to your awesome powers of non sequitur. - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Actually that's your reasoning. Years ago when I was in college, educators wrote that innovation for innovation's sake is worth nothing. Truly worthwhile inventions judging by percent of Nobel Prize awards are by Jews, hence in Hebrew. But until the world converts to their superior culture, inventions are best communicated to the world in English since automatic machine translation is frequently imperfect. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote: On 05/04/2013, at 7:19 AM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: The main source of invention is not math wins as described on http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be speaking math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions that improve the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to tasks that involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic such as in statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if logic is not given priority over the tools of math. For human value, readability is required, so computer language improvements must focus on natural language. Your assumptive base is incorrect. You're assuming because all the world speaks english english has won in terms of being the main source of innovation. That's not correct reasoning. Julian ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
The fact that we're not communicating very effectively disproves your point. ;-) Julian On 06/04/2013, at 12:42 AM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: Actually that's your reasoning. Years ago when I was in college, educators wrote that innovation for innovation's sake is worth nothing. Truly worthwhile inventions judging by percent of Nobel Prize awards are by Jews, hence in Hebrew. But until the world converts to their superior culture, inventions are best communicated to the world in English since automatic machine translation is frequently imperfect. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote: On 05/04/2013, at 7:19 AM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: The main source of invention is not math wins as described on http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be speaking math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions that improve the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to tasks that involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic such as in statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if logic is not given priority over the tools of math. For human value, readability is required, so computer language improvements must focus on natural language. Your assumptive base is incorrect. You're assuming because all the world speaks english english has won in terms of being the main source of innovation. That's not correct reasoning. Julian ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Apology accepted. ;-) Julian On 06/04/2013, at 12:42 AM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: Actually that's your reasoning. Years ago when I was in college, educators wrote that innovation for innovation's sake is worth nothing. Truly worthwhile inventions judging by percent of Nobel Prize awards are by Jews, hence in Hebrew. But until the world converts to their superior culture, inventions are best communicated to the world in English since automatic machine translation is frequently imperfect. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:19 AM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote: On 05/04/2013, at 7:19 AM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: The main source of invention is not math wins as described on http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm since the world would be speaking math if it were really the source of inspiring more inventions that improve the world's standard of living. Math helps add precision to tasks that involve counting. Attempting to move from counting to logic such as in statistics sometimes leads to false conclusions, especially if logic is not given priority over the tools of math. For human value, readability is required, so computer language improvements must focus on natural language. Your assumptive base is incorrect. You're assuming because all the world speaks english english has won in terms of being the main source of innovation. That's not correct reasoning. Julian ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] 37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong
Okay, at this point, I have to recommend the sequence mentioned in the subject. Here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ Simply put, a human mind have a certain structure, most of which is universally shared among functioning members of a human society (like the expression and recognition of certain emotions). Those aspects are virtually unchanging. It should then be obvious that some languages are better than others at helping our specie communicate —and come up with— thoughts. Which they are may depend in the kind of thought involved. (One can draw a very close analogy with the suitability of programming languages.) Now the question of language decay is a technical one: do recent evolution actually hindered such and such type of thinking, or are we just annoyed at having to constantly learn new terminology? I dare say we have instances of both. People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. ...I won't comment on that nonsense. I will. You can see this in action in many philosophical debates, especially the everlasting match of Religion vs Atheism. At some point, the one who is losing the debate will often say that truth is relative, is a matter of point of view, or even a matter of faith… Then they reject the law of non-contradiction. Like, okay, we don't believe the same things, but that doesn't mean one of us is *wrong*. In colloquial language, Truth has a simple, precise meaning. Belief has another simple, precise meaning. Those meanings are evident to most people who have ever tossed a coin, and waited for a second before they looked at it. When discussing certain subjects such as philosophy, those notions are important enough to warrant the use of short words to refer to them. But if words don't mean anything, the meaning themselves are no longer accessible. I don't care if you believe in God, but I won't forgive you for denying me access to notions that you don't like. Or simply disregard anything you have to say about the subject. Loup. On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:32:47PM +0200, Gath-Gealaich wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.comwrote: Liberal dictionaries have definitions that are by default wrong. There's no such thing as liberal dictionaries. For evidence of language decay, read definitions from the 1988 Webster's Collegiate vs. the current Webster's. Pure word and definition is needed to understand truth. There's no such thing as pure words. Language is a dynamic, evolving, feedback-driven entity that grows and adapts to new conditions, with meanings of words broadening (dog), narrowing (hound), shifting(computer) etc. People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. ...I won't comment on that nonsense. For example the current political fight on marriage demonstrates some people couldn't care less for truth, only for employer's spouse benefits to be shared with roommates. Political fight on marriage? I don't live in the US, so I have little understanding what you're talking about, but the word marriage seems to be applied in most cultures over the globe for some sort of binding social contract between individuals related to nurturing younglings for the next generation, yielding vastly different rights and obligations from such union across the different cultures. This makes the meaning of the word marriage highly contextual. (But I admit freely that my understanding of cultural anthropology is limited to having skimmed through the Encyclopedia of World Cultures. It was worth it, though - and quite fascinating at that.) - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:42:53AM -0700, Kirk Fraser wrote: […] Truly worthwhile inventions judging by percent of Nobel Prize awards are by Jews, hence in Hebrew. […] Are your saying that most Nobel prize winning Jews were using Hebrew to think the thoughts that lead them to the Nobel prize? That looks really improbable. More so than a higher average IQ, for instance. Unless, maybe Hewbrew happens to be more amenable to efficient thinking? For the superior Jewish culture, I'd rather ask Eliezer Yudkowsky. ;-) Loup. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
I was pointing out that innovation for its own sake is worthless then was agreeing with the view that not all the world's inventions come from people who think in English yet pointing out communicating in English is best for world wide distribution. I don't really know how many Jews who won Nobel Prizes thought in Hebrew, English, or even Russian. But it is as you wrote possible that Hebrew is more efficient. Something about their culture tends to be productive compared to others. Perhaps it's their orientation toward God, which is defined as absolute spiritual perfection. That in itself would tend to produce more efficient thought. English has a property that unfortunately allows it to be redefined with liberal definitions which are inefficient. Computers need smarter software to exceed the performance of Watson and OpenCyc to create worthwhile innovations automatically. I think working to automate Bible analysis is an efficient way to produce smarter software. But based the failures of automatic translators, computers may be slow to think flawlessly. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Loup Vaillant-David l...@loup-vaillant.frwrote: On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 06:42:53AM -0700, Kirk Fraser wrote: […] Truly worthwhile inventions judging by percent of Nobel Prize awards are by Jews, hence in Hebrew. […] Are your saying that most Nobel prize winning Jews were using Hebrew to think the thoughts that lead them to the Nobel prize? That looks really improbable. More so than a higher average IQ, for instance. Unless, maybe Hewbrew happens to be more amenable to efficient thinking? For the superior Jewish culture, I'd rather ask Eliezer Yudkowsky. ;-) Loup. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: I was pointing out that innovation for its own sake is worthless then was agreeing with the view that not all the world's inventions come from people who think in English yet pointing out communicating in English is best for world wide distribution. I don't really know how many Jews who won Nobel Prizes thought in Hebrew, English, or even Russian. But it is as you wrote possible that Hebrew is more efficient. No, it's not. Whorfianism has been all but refuted. The only area in which the idea hold water, quite ironically, is formal/computer/programming languages (or so Paul Graham says, but he's right, as far as I can tell). Something about their culture tends to be productive compared to others. Perhaps it's their orientation toward God, which is defined as absolute spiritual perfection. That in itself would tend to produce more efficient thought. They've been oppressed by intellectually impoverished Christians for two millennia, denied the right to work in the fields of agriculture and crafts, and were forced to work in knowledge oriented professions such as medicine or finances. Of course that this nurtures a specific culture, and with the (most likely involuntary) need to become as indispensable for others as possible in over to avoid getting killed by hilt-happy Easter celebrators, they were virtually forced into what is usually referred to as overachievement (although here I have to admit, despite my former point, that you English people have the weirdest notions in your language). English has a property that unfortunately allows it to be redefined with liberal definitions which are inefficient. ^^^ This is a thoroughly nonsensical and meaningless statement. Computers need smarter software to exceed the performance of Watson and OpenCyc to create worthwhile innovations automatically. I think working to automate Bible analysis is an efficient way to produce smarter software. But based the failures of automatic translators, computers may be slow to think flawlessly. Again, you're completely ignoring the actual nature of speech, demonstrated in such phenomena as the existence of idiolects, referential indeterminacy, diachronic shifts etc. Language is what it is because there's a common sense component to its processing in our brains, and once you have that, you've successfully replicated a human being in silicon. Until that happens, all bets are off. (I'm tempted to wager that the inverse also holds, has_human_intelligence(X) :- understands_language(X). Although the fact that an average human being picked from your general population often fails at simple logical reasoning sort of suggests that the intelligence is of a slightly different kind that what we usually mean by saying he's intelligent/he's a genius.) - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Gath, So what language do you normally think in? You have stated you don't live in America. Obviously you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh long enough to know what liberal is. Why comment on things you know so little about? Tune in to Rush via iheart radio and listen for about 6 weeks and you'll have more clarity on what liberal actually means in America. I don't know many details about Israel but I suspect they don't misuse their words as often as liberals do here. That in itself makes Hebrew more efficient. Of course, as you wrote certain environmental factors may contribute to overachieving but I would argue that is impossible. It is impossible to overachieve. But that would be me exercising liberalism by going off topic - inefficient. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Gath-Gealaich gath.na.geala...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.comwrote: I was pointing out that innovation for its own sake is worthless then was agreeing with the view that not all the world's inventions come from people who think in English yet pointing out communicating in English is best for world wide distribution. I don't really know how many Jews who won Nobel Prizes thought in Hebrew, English, or even Russian. But it is as you wrote possible that Hebrew is more efficient. No, it's not. Whorfianism has been all but refuted. The only area in which the idea hold water, quite ironically, is formal/computer/programming languages (or so Paul Graham says, but he's right, as far as I can tell). Something about their culture tends to be productive compared to others. Perhaps it's their orientation toward God, which is defined as absolute spiritual perfection. That in itself would tend to produce more efficient thought. They've been oppressed by intellectually impoverished Christians for two millennia, denied the right to work in the fields of agriculture and crafts, and were forced to work in knowledge oriented professions such as medicine or finances. Of course that this nurtures a specific culture, and with the (most likely involuntary) need to become as indispensable for others as possible in over to avoid getting killed by hilt-happy Easter celebrators, they were virtually forced into what is usually referred to as overachievement (although here I have to admit, despite my former point, that you English people have the weirdest notions in your language). English has a property that unfortunately allows it to be redefined with liberal definitions which are inefficient. ^^^ This is a thoroughly nonsensical and meaningless statement. Computers need smarter software to exceed the performance of Watson and OpenCyc to create worthwhile innovations automatically. I think working to automate Bible analysis is an efficient way to produce smarter software. But based the failures of automatic translators, computers may be slow to think flawlessly. Again, you're completely ignoring the actual nature of speech, demonstrated in such phenomena as the existence of idiolects, referential indeterminacy, diachronic shifts etc. Language is what it is because there's a common sense component to its processing in our brains, and once you have that, you've successfully replicated a human being in silicon. Until that happens, all bets are off. (I'm tempted to wager that the inverse also holds, has_human_intelligence(X) :- understands_language(X). Although the fact that an average human being picked from your general population often fails at simple logical reasoning sort of suggests that the intelligence is of a slightly different kind that what we usually mean by saying he's intelligent/he's a genius.) - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] 37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong
Loup, Thanks for the link. Those 37 ways might help build a truth maintenance system. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Loup Vaillant-David l...@loup-vaillant.frwrote: Okay, at this point, I have to recommend the sequence mentioned in the subject. Here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/ Simply put, a human mind have a certain structure, most of which is universally shared among functioning members of a human society (like the expression and recognition of certain emotions). Those aspects are virtually unchanging. It should then be obvious that some languages are better than others at helping our specie communicate —and come up with— thoughts. Which they are may depend in the kind of thought involved. (One can draw a very close analogy with the suitability of programming languages.) Now the question of language decay is a technical one: do recent evolution actually hindered such and such type of thinking, or are we just annoyed at having to constantly learn new terminology? I dare say we have instances of both. People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. ...I won't comment on that nonsense. I will. You can see this in action in many philosophical debates, especially the everlasting match of Religion vs Atheism. At some point, the one who is losing the debate will often say that truth is relative, is a matter of point of view, or even a matter of faith… Then they reject the law of non-contradiction. Like, okay, we don't believe the same things, but that doesn't mean one of us is *wrong*. In colloquial language, Truth has a simple, precise meaning. Belief has another simple, precise meaning. Those meanings are evident to most people who have ever tossed a coin, and waited for a second before they looked at it. When discussing certain subjects such as philosophy, those notions are important enough to warrant the use of short words to refer to them. But if words don't mean anything, the meaning themselves are no longer accessible. I don't care if you believe in God, but I won't forgive you for denying me access to notions that you don't like. Or simply disregard anything you have to say about the subject. Loup. On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:32:47PM +0200, Gath-Gealaich wrote: On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: Liberal dictionaries have definitions that are by default wrong. There's no such thing as liberal dictionaries. For evidence of language decay, read definitions from the 1988 Webster's Collegiate vs. the current Webster's. Pure word and definition is needed to understand truth. There's no such thing as pure words. Language is a dynamic, evolving, feedback-driven entity that grows and adapts to new conditions, with meanings of words broadening (dog), narrowing (hound), shifting(computer) etc. People who love to lie get along without words meaning things. ...I won't comment on that nonsense. For example the current political fight on marriage demonstrates some people couldn't care less for truth, only for employer's spouse benefits to be shared with roommates. Political fight on marriage? I don't live in the US, so I have little understanding what you're talking about, but the word marriage seems to be applied in most cultures over the globe for some sort of binding social contract between individuals related to nurturing younglings for the next generation, yielding vastly different rights and obligations from such union across the different cultures. This makes the meaning of the word marriage highly contextual. (But I admit freely that my understanding of cultural anthropology is limited to having skimmed through the Encyclopedia of World Cultures. It was worth it, though - and quite fascinating at that.) - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/05/2013 04:19 PM, Kirk Fraser wrote: snippage Tune in to Rush via iheart radio and listen for about 6 weeks and you'll have more clarity on what liberal actually means in America. Heh. This statement far more offensive than all of the overt religiosity :-] There's no possible way that I could stand listening to Rush for 1/2 an hour, forget 6 weeks; he's a hypocritical idiot. more snippage Nevertheless I'm finding some of this conversation truly fascinating (though I'm having a little trouble figuring out what is truth and what isn't). be well, ~c -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRXzS5AAoJELuLPXMxqTZ/SBkP/jOa9gqxlQw9eiSKPK4bZymT e6LHDSUwKu2DlI4B9WdDnvbvrpVkn3FUT6rT7W/LAoXMRBWjVuWKWvuAyFmcwXap ylAj9M8nrsz9sqG65Fu9Z/gEUYcMV/SX/G+sndG5XWWoQwzOyCEtxnK++1TNE1Eu x+IJV74asYtv6GtwKmoYBSNdfNc8w6znxgqUNsGrRqZjUS90flcLL1dUTI3yP4IB 1cynDNINrWVqjz12iVW/C80QVIUnz2q4gUs4G3IKpUTCuNT35TxOF6m/n1/nU2cy Fpp70mSUBfYZbv351Q9qZaeVIp+xUIGYr44tmROwAVM66NJI4a+g0arVlM0Z+Izr B9ZlbbU8kAhupyD1GHgwnyhIeXp10D2I3I8be/TNnr5ekz5BQJnCYaG1vEXROSBO mIxLuQykq4vk85W9qTcO84vXOBB8NXM8vulA4p9CA74LScjsEOgFYdZ/PWV87dDM 6BOihWDWgx9aCBiQLk+veTFg9vpZINswJ5uYMwN8a+A6Okwosby1BWp4ctKMiLcN hV5bGSAiacvzJ6gkrV2/SRQE+5PTr2UaFOQL63mIAo2+KJ1gaSOQrRUsAVRo7xrf 7BmMxCcO7k+klcHaYNkHjEXyULpsjKOU3AugKGnoOdPYj5AGEGO/0bcG5HQ9+22X zNjtxMVhBPn73L1vwp0k =wkP2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
I am now convinced we are on some sort of mailing list version of candid camera. Or maybe these messages are the product of some strange markovian email generator programmed to create dissonance by combining fringe comp sci theories with offensive social commentary normally reserved for talk radio. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: Gath, So what language do you normally think in? You have stated you don't live in America. Obviously you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh long enough to know what liberal is. Why comment on things you know so little about? Tune in to Rush via iheart radio and listen for about 6 weeks and you'll have more clarity on what liberal actually means in America. I don't know many details about Israel but I suspect they don't misuse their words as often as liberals do here. That in itself makes Hebrew more efficient. Of course, as you wrote certain environmental factors may contribute to overachieving but I would argue that is impossible. It is impossible to overachieve. But that would be me exercising liberalism by going off topic - inefficient. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Gath-Gealaich gath.na.geala...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.comwrote: I was pointing out that innovation for its own sake is worthless then was agreeing with the view that not all the world's inventions come from people who think in English yet pointing out communicating in English is best for world wide distribution. I don't really know how many Jews who won Nobel Prizes thought in Hebrew, English, or even Russian. But it is as you wrote possible that Hebrew is more efficient. No, it's not. Whorfianism has been all but refuted. The only area in which the idea hold water, quite ironically, is formal/computer/programming languages (or so Paul Graham says, but he's right, as far as I can tell). Something about their culture tends to be productive compared to others. Perhaps it's their orientation toward God, which is defined as absolute spiritual perfection. That in itself would tend to produce more efficient thought. They've been oppressed by intellectually impoverished Christians for two millennia, denied the right to work in the fields of agriculture and crafts, and were forced to work in knowledge oriented professions such as medicine or finances. Of course that this nurtures a specific culture, and with the (most likely involuntary) need to become as indispensable for others as possible in over to avoid getting killed by hilt-happy Easter celebrators, they were virtually forced into what is usually referred to as overachievement (although here I have to admit, despite my former point, that you English people have the weirdest notions in your language). English has a property that unfortunately allows it to be redefined with liberal definitions which are inefficient. ^^^ This is a thoroughly nonsensical and meaningless statement. Computers need smarter software to exceed the performance of Watson and OpenCyc to create worthwhile innovations automatically. I think working to automate Bible analysis is an efficient way to produce smarter software. But based the failures of automatic translators, computers may be slow to think flawlessly. Again, you're completely ignoring the actual nature of speech, demonstrated in such phenomena as the existence of idiolects, referential indeterminacy, diachronic shifts etc. Language is what it is because there's a common sense component to its processing in our brains, and once you have that, you've successfully replicated a human being in silicon. Until that happens, all bets are off. (I'm tempted to wager that the inverse also holds, has_human_intelligence(X) :- understands_language(X). Although the fact that an average human being picked from your general population often fails at simple logical reasoning sort of suggests that the intelligence is of a slightly different kind that what we usually mean by saying he's intelligent/he's a genius.) - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Ya think!? Did I really just waste five minutes...? Let us all go home and try to regain some clarity. Interesting points all but are we done? Alan M. On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:35 PM, shaun gilchrist shaunxc...@gmail.com wrote: I am now convinced we are on some sort of mailing list version of candid camera. Or maybe these messages are the product of some strange markovian email generator programmed to create dissonance by combining fringe comp sci theories with offensive social commentary normally reserved for talk radio. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.com wrote: Gath, So what language do you normally think in? You have stated you don't live in America. Obviously you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh long enough to know what liberal is. Why comment on things you know so little about? Tune in to Rush via iheart radio and listen for about 6 weeks and you'll have more clarity on what liberal actually means in America. I don't know many details about Israel but I suspect they don't misuse their words as often as liberals do here. That in itself makes Hebrew more efficient. Of course, as you wrote certain environmental factors may contribute to overachieving but I would argue that is impossible. It is impossible to overachieve. But that would be me exercising liberalism by going off topic - inefficient. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Gath-Gealaich gath.na.geala...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Kirk Fraser overcomer@gmail.comwrote: I was pointing out that innovation for its own sake is worthless then was agreeing with the view that not all the world's inventions come from people who think in English yet pointing out communicating in English is best for world wide distribution. I don't really know how many Jews who won Nobel Prizes thought in Hebrew, English, or even Russian. But it is as you wrote possible that Hebrew is more efficient. No, it's not. Whorfianism has been all but refuted. The only area in which the idea hold water, quite ironically, is formal/computer/programming languages (or so Paul Graham says, but he's right, as far as I can tell). Something about their culture tends to be productive compared to others. Perhaps it's their orientation toward God, which is defined as absolute spiritual perfection. That in itself would tend to produce more efficient thought. They've been oppressed by intellectually impoverished Christians for two millennia, denied the right to work in the fields of agriculture and crafts, and were forced to work in knowledge oriented professions such as medicine or finances. Of course that this nurtures a specific culture, and with the (most likely involuntary) need to become as indispensable for others as possible in over to avoid getting killed by hilt-happy Easter celebrators, they were virtually forced into what is usually referred to as overachievement (although here I have to admit, despite my former point, that you English people have the weirdest notions in your language). English has a property that unfortunately allows it to be redefined with liberal definitions which are inefficient. ^^^ This is a thoroughly nonsensical and meaningless statement. Computers need smarter software to exceed the performance of Watson and OpenCyc to create worthwhile innovations automatically. I think working to automate Bible analysis is an efficient way to produce smarter software. But based the failures of automatic translators, computers may be slow to think flawlessly. Again, you're completely ignoring the actual nature of speech, demonstrated in such phenomena as the existence of idiolects, referential indeterminacy, diachronic shifts etc. Language is what it is because there's a common sense component to its processing in our brains, and once you have that, you've successfully replicated a human being in silicon. Until that happens, all bets are off. (I'm tempted to wager that the inverse also holds, has_human_intelligence(X) :- understands_language(X). Although the fact that an average human being picked from your general population often fails at simple logical reasoning sort of suggests that the intelligence is of a slightly different kind that what we usually mean by saying he's intelligent/he's a genius.) - Gath ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc -- Kirk W. Fraser http://freetom.info/TrueChurch - Replace the fraud churches with the true church. http://congressionalbiblestudy.org - Fix America by first fixing its Christian foundation. http://freetom.info - Example of False Justice common in America ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org
Re: [fonc] Natural Language Wins
Charlie Derr wrote: Nevertheless I'm finding some of this conversation truly fascinating (though I'm having a little trouble figuring out what is truth and what isn't). I'm just waiting for Kirk to mention Atlantis or the Rosicrucians. It feels like it could be any moment... Steve ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
