From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Sep 25 04:24:59 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GRoZ2-0006ky-M3 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:23:58 -0700 Received: from imo-m16.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.206]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GRoYU-0006k5-D7 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:23:49 -0700 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-m16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.6.) id d.c81.205c654 (62952) for ; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:23:19 -0400 (EDT) From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:23:18 EDT Subject: [lojban] MI vs. AI To: lojban-list@lojban.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c81.205c654.32491626_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 11501 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-archive-position: 12628 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_c81.205c654.32491626_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/25/2006 4:22:37 AM Central Standard Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > From: "M@" > Subject: [lojban] my opinion on why lojban isn't specifically well suited > for h > Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:24:17 -0600 > > First, a disclaimer; while I have put a significant amount of time into > thinking about this kind of thing I'm certainly not an expert. I'm still > going for my BS. > > > Computers are both digital and binary (note: I distinguish digital from > binary, some people disagree, but that's another argument altogether (and > yes I'm aware that binary implies digital, that phrase is foreshadowing)), > which makes them an interesting self metaphor. The difference between MI > and AI is as fundamental as the difference between 1 and 0. Thus, the two > potential uses of a syntactically unambiguous language (SUL for brevity) in > a computer have no grey area between them. > > ... > > Of course, the other dream is to actually teach a MI how to speak and > understand lojban. Assuming such an auto-associative system could be made > hardware wise, there would be absolutely nothing preventing it from being a > perfectly natural feeling interface in spoken or typed lojban. You could > ask it absurd questions and it could give you obviously considered answers. > The problem I find with this is that once you've built MI there's no reason > whatsoever you couldn't teach it English as well. > > The problem with human languages is that they are based on understanding. > The problem with computer languages is that they're based on digital > principles (which don't really apply in an analog world). > > > > That's what I think anyway, if you disagree I'd love to hear why. > > What's MI? Machine Intelligence? If so, how's that different from AI? stevo --part1_c81.205c654.32491626_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/25/2006 4:22:37 AM Cent= ral Standard Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


From: "M@" <matthew.dunl= ap@gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] my opinion on why lojban isn't specifically well suite= d for h
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:24:17 -0600

First, a disclaimer; while I have put a significant amount of time into
thinking about this kind of thing I'm certainly not an expert.  I'm= still
going for my BS.


Computers are both digital and binary (note: I distinguish digital from
binary, some people disagree, but that's another argument altogether (an= d
yes I'm aware that binary implies digital, that phrase is foreshadowing)= ),
which makes them an interesting self metaphor.  The difference betw= een MI
and AI is as fundamental as the difference between 1 and 0.  Thus,=20= the two
potential uses of a syntactically unambiguous language (SUL for brevity)= in
a computer have no grey area between them.

...

Of course, the other dream is to actually teach a MI how to speak and
understand lojban.  Assuming such an auto-associative system could=20= be made
hardware wise, there would be absolutely nothing preventing it from bein= g a
perfectly natural feeling interface in spoken or typed lojban.  You= could
ask it absurd questions and it could give you obviously considered answe= rs.
The problem I find with this is that once you've built MI there's no rea= son
whatsoever you couldn't teach it English as well.

The problem with human languages is that they are based on understanding= .
The problem with computer languages is that they're based on digital
principles (which don't really apply in an analog world).



That's what I think anyway, if you disagree I'd love to hear why.



What's MI?  Machine Intelligence?
If so, how's that different from AI?

stevo --part1_c81.205c654.32491626_boundary-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.