From pycyn@aol.com Fri Apr 26 06:24:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 26 Apr 2002 13:24:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 59577 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 13:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Apr 2002 13:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d10.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.42) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 13:23:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.155.cff629e (4533) for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:23:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <155.cff629e.29faaeea@aol.com> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:23:54 EDT Subject: Fwd: [lojban] So you think you're logical? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14121 --part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_alt_boundary" --part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/2002 3:19:50 PM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes: > ><'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'> > > >Also curiously prescientitic. Most time frames existed before there were > any minds and so hardly entailed them, even as future existents, > apparently. > But I >usppose there is some logic (at least set of premises) that does > make > this work out. > > But very insightful for something generated by a computer program designed > to write texts using Markov chains, no? > I don't know about "insightful." It is a pleasant surprise that a machine can get as close asa this to things people do say just by adding some probability measures in. Of course, I worry about the post-editing. What else turned up in this run? <>But this is a remarkably prescientific notion of causation, one surely dead by the end of the 18th century. Why would we preserve it in Lojban? Aside from >physical links -- expanding gases on pistons, gears and wheels, fluctuations in magnetic fields, and, of course, grabbing a hand and moving it -- it does >not function well. And in those cases, {ri'a} still works. (I skip over my problem about {ka} being a force of some sort.) The only prescientificness I can see is in the fact that if it were used when there is no causation, it would entail a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. One would never use bai for this, because that would be fallacious!> Well, it is always fallacious to infer causation from mere temporal succession, but it seems equally fallacious to infer that there is a force at work in causal relations. What we often have is nothing more than observed repeated cases of the sequence of events that cohere with some explanatory narrative, but no force -- indeed, no compulsion at all, just the way that things work in this world as a matter of fact. All of this has been a common-place since at least the middle of the 18th century, so suggesting there is a force is a step backward. Of course, there are cases where there is a force and ten {bapli} is relevent -- even correct, but these are not the most common cases. --part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_alt_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/25/2002 3:19:50 PM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes:


><'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'>

>Also curiously prescientitic. Most time frames existed before there were
any minds and so hardly entailed them, even as future existents, apparently.
But I >usppose there is some logic (at least set of premises) that does make
this work out.

But very insightful for something generated by a computer program designed
to write texts using Markov chains, no?

I don't know about "insightful."  It is a pleasant  surprise that a machine can get as close asa this to things people do say just by adding some probability measures in.  Of course, I worry about the post-editing.  What else turned up in this run?

<>But this is a remarkably prescientific notion of causation, one surely dead
by the end of the 18th century.  Why would we preserve it in Lojban?  Aside
from >physical links -- expanding gases on pistons, gears and wheels,
fluctuations in magnetic fields, and, of course, grabbing a hand and moving
it -- it does
>not function well.  And in those cases, {ri'a} still works.  (I skip over
my problem about {ka} being a force of some sort.)

The only prescientificness I can see is in the fact that if it were used
when there is no causation, it would entail a post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy. One would never use bai for this, because that would be fallacious!>

Well, it is always fallacious to infer causation from mere temporal succession, but it seems equally fallacious to infer that there is a force at work in causal relations.  What we often have is nothing more than observed repeated cases of the sequence of events that cohere with some explanatory narrative, but no force -- indeed, no compulsion at all, just the way that things work in this world as a matter of fact. All of this has been a common-place since at least the middle of the 18th century, so suggesting there is a force is a step backward.  Of course, there are cases where there is a force and ten {bapli} is relevent -- even correct, but these are not the most common cases.



 --part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_alt_boundary----part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-xc04.mx.aol.com (rly-xc04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.137]) by air-xc04.mail.aol.com (v84.16) with ESMTP id MAILINXC41-0425161950; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:19:50 -0400 Received: from n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com (n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com [66.218.66.79]) by rly-xc04.mx.aol.com (v84.10) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXC410-0425161928; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:19:28 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14138-1019765814-pycyn=aol.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.200] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Apr 2002 20:16:55 -0000 X-Sender: raganok@intrex.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 25 Apr 2002 20:16:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 1731 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2002 20:16:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Apr 2002 20:16:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intrex.net) (209.42.192.250) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2002 20:16:53 -0000 Received: from Craig [209.42.200.90] by intrex.net (SMTPD32-5.05) id A42BD61D0120; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:16:43 -0400 To: Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <126.fc1dd25.29f9ba95@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-eGroups-From: "Craig" From: "Craig" X-Yahoo-Profile: kreig_daniyl MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:16:43 -0400 Subject: RE: [lojban] So you think you're logical? Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ><'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'> >Also curiously prescientitic. Most time frames existed before there were any minds and so hardly entailed them, even as future existents, apparently. But I >usppose there is some logic (at least set of premises) that does make this work out. But very insightful for something generated by a computer program designed to write texts using Markov chains, no? To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_boundary--