[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: [lojban] So you think you're logical?
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
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 4/25/2002 3:19:50 PM Central Daylight Time, ragnarok@pobox.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">><'ro temci lo menli cu nibli'><BR>
<BR>
>Also curiously prescientitic. Most time frames existed before there were<BR>
any minds and so hardly entailed them, even as future existents, apparently.<BR>
But I >usppose there is some logic (at least set of premises) that does make<BR>
this work out.<BR>
<BR>
But very insightful for something generated by a computer program designed<BR>
to write texts using Markov chains, no?<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
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? <BR>
<BR>
<>But this is a remarkably prescientific notion of causation, one surely dead<BR>
by the end of the 18th century. Why would we preserve it in Lojban? Aside<BR>
from >physical links -- expanding gases on pistons, gears and wheels,<BR>
fluctuations in magnetic fields, and, of course, grabbing a hand and moving<BR>
it -- it does<BR>
>not function well. And in those cases, {ri'a} still works. (I skip over<BR>
my problem about {ka} being a force of some sort.)<BR>
<BR>
The only prescientificness I can see is in the fact that if it were used<BR>
when there is no causation, it would entail a post hoc ergo propter hoc<BR>
fallacy. One would never use bai for this, because that would be fallacious!><BR>
<BR>
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 <I>force</I> -- 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.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_155.cff629e.29faaeea_alt_boundary--
--- Begin Message ---
><'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/
--- End Message ---